BX  7323    .JA5  L3  1858 
Lard,  Moses  E.  1818-1880. 
A  review  of  Rev.  J.B. 
Jeter's  book  entitled 


r 


X 


f 


REVIEW 


REV.  J.  B.  JETER'S  BOOK 


''CAMrBELLISM  EXAMINED.'^ 


MOSES  E.  LARD, 


OP  MISSOURI. 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION 

BY  ALEXAJ^DER  CAMPBELL, 


OF  BETHANT,  VA. 


J.  B. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
LIPPINCOTT  &  CO. 
1858. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1857,  by 
MOSES  E.  LARD, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  in  and  for  the  Fastern 
District  of  Pennsylvania. 


PREFACE. 


In  the  work  here  offered  to  the  public,  the  writer  has  had 
two  objects  in  view : — 1st,  to  furnish  a  reply  to  the  material 
parts  of  ''Campbellism  Examined;"  2d,  to  present  a  com- 
pressed vindication  of  the  chief  doctrines  therein  attacked. 

In  endeavoring  to  execute  the  former  task,  he  has  aimed 
to  present,  with  what  he  believes  to  be  an  equitable  fullness, 
and  with  as  much  order  as  was  attainable  in  the  case,  what 
he  supposed  Mr.  Jeter  himself  would  deem  the  strong  points 
of  his  work,  and  to  reply  to  these  without  evasion  or  injustice. 
He  may  not  always^have  understood,  in  the  sense  in  which 
its  author  intended  it  to  be  understood,  the  position  or  the 
argument  he  has  replied  to ;  but,  if  in  any  instance  such  has 
been  the  case,  he  claims  to  say  that  the  error  has  not  been 
intentional  at  least.  The  confusion  amidst  which  these  posi- 
tions have  had  to  be  sought,  and  the  rubbish  in  which  they 
have  been  found  embedded,  have  made  a  clean  elimination 
and  clear  presentation  of  them  at  times  not  a  little  difficult. 
It  is  believed,  however,  that  no  important  argument  has  been 
permitted  to  pass  without  notice ;  while  many  have  received 
notice  far  beyond  their  claims. 

In  attempting  to  execute  the  latter  task,  one  end  constantly 
kept  in  view  has  been  to  state  the  position  to  be  defended 
with  the  utmost  clearness,  drawing  such  distinctions  and  sub- 

iii 


iv 


PREFACE. 


mitting  such  qualifications  as  would  tend  to  free  it  from  any 
existing  doubt  or  ambiguity.  The  arguments  then  presented 
are  believed  to  be  at  least  valid  and  pertinent ;  but  whether 
conclusive  or  not  is  left  with  the  candid  reader  to  decide. 
Some  of  these  arguments,  be  it  said,  are  not  intended  so 
much  to  establish  the  immediate  question  at  issue,  as  to  pre- 
pare the  mind  for  others  better  adapted  to  that  end.  Still,  all 
are  thought  to  be  important  and  necessary. 

A  work  similar  in  object  to  the  present  has  been  for  some 
time  past  impatiently  looked  for  from  quite  another  quarter. 
The  immense  labors,  however,  which  have  accumulated  on 
Mr.  Campbell's  hands,  have  rendered  it  utterly  impracticable 
for  him  to  comply  with  this  just  expectation.  This  is  much 
to  be  regretted.  The  present  work  is  not  an  attempt  to 
accomplish  what  he  would  have  done.  It  is,  however,  an 
attempt  to  do  all  that  it  is  believed  the  merits  of  the  case 
demand,  and  that,  too,  with  a  view  to  leaving  him  to  prosecute 
far  more  important  labors.  And,  while  the  public  will  hardly 
feel  inclined  to  acquit  the  writer  for  presuming  to  do  what  it 
was  just  possible  even  might  have  been  done  by  a  hand  so 
much  more  competent,  still,  he  begs  that  it  will  be  remem- 
bered that,  had  not  this  much  been  attempted,  it  is  almost 
certain  nothing  would  have  been  realized, — at  least  without 
almost  superhuman  efforts.  Mr.  Campbell  has  not  lacked  the 
will  to  gratify  the  public  expectation,  but  he  has  certainly 
lacked  the  power. 

Should  it  be  inquired  why  it  is  that  the  present  work 
makes  its  appearance  at  so  late  a  date,  the  reply  is,  that  it 
has  not  been  felt  to  be  in  the  slightest  degree  necessary  to  be 
in  haste.  It  was  meet  that  Mr.  Jeter's  book  should  be  allowed 
ample  time  to  do  its  work.    Meanwhile,  all  has  been  calm  in 


PREFACE. 


V 


our  ranks.  No  defections  have  occurred,  no  dissatisfaction 
has  prevailed,  no  alarm  existed.  Hence,  no  peculiar  neces- 
sity was  felt  to  be  in  haste  to  repel  an  attack  from  which  no 
perceptible  injury  was  accruing. 

But  the  reader  will  doubtless  feel  curious  to  know  why  it  is 
that  Mr.  Jeter's  second  book — '^Campbellism  Re-examined" 
— has  been  treated  so  cavalierly.  The  writer's  reply  is  simply 
that  he  has  seen  and  read  the  swaggering  little  thing :  should 
a  more  elaborate  reason  be  demanded,  that  reason  must  be 
sought  in  the  character  of  the  silence  with  which  the  work  is 
passed. 

In  citing  the  passages  of  Scripture  introduced  into  the  pre- 
sent work,  the  book,  chapter,  and  verse,  in  which  each  can 
be  found,  has  not,  except  in  a  very  few  cases,  been  referred 
to.  This  course  has  been  adopted  for  two  reasons: — 1st,  the 
passages  are  generally  such  as  most  readers  may  be  presumed 
familiar  with,  in  which  case  no  reference  is  needed  :  2d,  refer- 
ences, even  when  given,  are  rarely  ever  consulted ;  for  this 
reason  it  was  not  thought  necessary  to  consume  space  with 
them. 

Liberty,  Missouri,  1857. 


« 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  first  and  the  last  course  of  the  spiritual  banquet  of  Old- 
School  or  New-School  Baptists — whether  Gillitc,  Fullerite,  or 
Sandemanian,  English,  Scotch,  German,  or  American — is  the 
New  Birth,  technically  called  Regeneration.  What  the  Re- 
former Luther  affirmed  of  justification  by  faith,  they  affirm  of 
some  indefinable  idea  called  by  them  Regeneration.''  It  is 
their  criterion  of  a  standing  or  a  falling  church.  Yet  this 
word,  occurring  only  twice  in  Holy  Writ,  in  neither  case 
refers  to  their  conception  or  definition  of  regeneration.  The 
Messiah  in  all  his  teachings  alludes  to  it  only  once,  and  then 
in  reference  to  the  literal  resurrection  of  the  dead  in  Christ, — 
Matt.  xix.  28.  Paul  once,  in  allusion  to  baptism,  calls  it  the 
^'washing  of  the  New  Birth,"  and  not  that  New  Birth  itself 
of  which  he  speaks. 

But  it  is  not  the  fact  of  the  New  Birth,  but  the  theory  of 
it,  that  has  become  the  apple  of  discord  and  contention,  even 
among  the  orthodox  themselves.  There  have  been  sundry 
ecclesiastic  patents  issued  in  theological  schools  for  diverse 
modern  theories  of  the  spiritual  modus  oj)erandi  in  all  cases 
of  genuine  regeneration.  One  theory  glories  in  pure  spiritual 
contact  or  impact  of  spirit  upon  spirit,  in  some  indescribable 
way — as  a  potter's  hand  upon  clay — new-moulding  it,  ante- 
cedent to  faith  and  independent  of  it.  Another  assumes  that 
regeneration  is  effected  by  the  mere  word  of  God,  through  its 
own  inherent  power  upon  the  understanding,  the  conscience, 
and  the  heart.  Another  class  contends  for  both  the  word 
and  the  Spirit  co-operating;  and  even  here  there  are  two 
schools  of  theological  metaphysicians, — one  assuming  that  the 
word  is  first  in  order,  the  other,  that  the  Spirit  is  first  in  order, 


viii 


INTRODUCTION. 


— the  word  working  by  the  Spirit,  the  Spirit  working  by  the 
word.  Such  may  not  be  precisely  their  terminology,  but  such 
is  virtually  our  conception  of  their  theory.  In  this,  as  in  all 
other  cases,  we  prefer  the  inspired  nomenclature  to  the  unin- 
spired. The  Messiah  prays  for  his  disciples  in  these  words : — 
Sanctify  them  through  thy  Truth :  thy  word  is  truth.''  There 
is  then  no  abstract  sanctijication,  else  there  are  two  forms  or 
characters  of  it : — one  through  the  Truth,  and  one  by  the  Spirit 
without  the  Truth.  So  of  being  born  again.  Hence  James 
oracularly  says,  (chap.  i.  18,)  Of  his  own  will  hegat  he  us 
with  the  icord  of  Truth and  that,  too,  ''that  we  should  be 
first-fruits  of  his  creatures."  To  the  same  effect  Peter  speaks, 
(1  E^.  chap.  i.  23  :) — "Being  born  (or  begotten)  again,  not 
of  cormptible  seed,  but  of  incorru2:)tible,  by  the  word  of  God, 
which  lives  and  abides  forever."  While  then  the  Spirit  is 
the  agent,  the  word  of  God  is  the  instrument,  in  all  cases, 
unless  there  be  two  distinct  forms  of  generation  and  regene- 
ration. 

Next  to  the  empty  and  deceitful  philosophy  on  the  subject 
of  regeneration,  wholly  inoperative  and  ineffectual  of  good  to 
saint  or  sinner,  comes,  from  the  same  metaphysical  cloisters, 
the  absorbing  theme  of  something  called  Christian  expe- 
rience J' 

We  never  doubted  nor  denied  Christian  experience.  But 
in  this  case  as  in  the  former,  in  our  benevolent  endeavors  to 
correct  the  diction  and  the  palpable  errors  everywhere  canon- 
ized on  this  subject,  we  were  obliged  to  take  exception  to  the 
misappropriation  of  the  term  '■^Christian  experience"  to  the 
states  of  mind  occurring  or  existing  antecedent  to  faith,  re- 
pentance, and  baptism.  This  was  formerly  almost  universal 
in  Virginia,  Kentucky,  Tennessee, — indeed,  in  all  the  fields 
of  my  early  labors  among  the  Baptist  brotherhood. 

On  my  first  visit  to  the  Dover  Association,  Virginia,  a  d. 
1828,  I  witnessed  scenes  of  the  wildest  enthusiasm  ever  wit- 
nessed by  me  in  any  camp-meeting.  There  were  "the  mourn- 
ers," "the  seekers  for  religion,"  "the  screaming  penitents," 


INTRODUCTION. 


ix 


coming  up  to  be  prayed  for,"  relating  their  Christian  expe- 
rience." Elder  Carr,  of  Richmond,  and  Elder  Jeremiah  B. 
Jeter,  were  contributing  their  smiles  and  exhortations.  And 
there  too  were  Bishop  Semple  and  Bishop  Broaddus,  &c.  &c., 
all  concurring  in  the  scenes  transpiring,  so  far  as  I  could  judge. 

The  candidates  for  baptism  in  those  days,  when  presenting 
themselves  for  baptism,  occasionally  related  strange  sights, 
marvelous  scenes,  irrepressible  emotions,  but  they  generally 
ended  in  "getting  religion;"  and  such  was  the  relation  of  their 

Christian  experience."  The  head  and  front  of  my  offending 
consisted  in  remonstrating  against  this  wild  enthusiasm.  "It 
had  this  extent,  no  more."  It  was,  indeed,  not  peculiar  to 
the  Dover  xlssociation,  nor  to  any  other  association  in  Virginia, 
Kentucky,  or  over  the  great  West  or  South,  to  have  from  every 
candidate  for  baptism  a  relation  of  his  feelings  and  emotions, 
on  which  a  vote  of  approbation  was  taken  to  entitle  him  to 
Christian  baptism.  I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  hearing  a 
single  confession  of  Christian  faith  or  of  a  belief  of  the  gospel 
from  any  candidate  among  the  Virginia  Baptists  in  order  to 
baptism.  The  candidate  was  baptized  into  his  own  experience, 
rather  than  into  the  Christian  faith,  as  I  understand  it. 

In  calling  these  customs  into  question,  we,  in  their  view, 
denied  Christian  experience !  All  the  appreciable  difference 
indeed  between  the  Virginia,  Kentucky,  Southwestern  Bap- 
tists, and  the  adult  Methodists  or  Congregationalists  of  those 
days,  was,  the  former  were  immersed,  the  latter  sprinkled,  "in 
the  name  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." 

True,  they  differed  in  ecclesiastic  politics,  tactics,  and  eco- 
nomics. But  in  no  one  grand,  distinctive,  characteristic  doc- 
trine, or  Christian  practice,  did  they  differ ;  and  in  no  special 
reverence  or  regard  for  the  apostolic  institutions.  In  these 
respects  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Baptists  in  those  days 
were  greatly  excelled  by  the  Scotch  and  some  of  the  English 
and  Welsh  Baptists,  espe<5ially  in  their  zeal  for  primitive  Chris- 
tianity, and  in  their  more  profound  piety  and  consecration  to 
the  Bedeemer's  cause  and  glory. 


X 


INTRODUCTION. 


"While,  then,  we  cannot  approve  the  equivocal  and  tempo- 
rizing course  adopted  by  Mr.  Jeter  on  the  subject  of  Christian 
experience  before  conversion,  which  he  himself  and  his  breth- 
ren formerly  demanded  or  inquired  for  as  a  passport  to 
baptism,  we  cannot  but  congratulate  the  denomination  on  the 
felicitous  change  which  has  already  come  over  it  in  this  and 
some  other  respects, — so  that  considerable  numbers  (as  the 
report  has  reached  us)  are  now  being  substantially  baptized 
mto  the  faith  of  the  person,  office,  and  character  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Alarmed  at  the 'prospects  in  his  horizon,  and 
eager  to  become  a  heroic  "defender  of  the  faith,"  Mr.  Jeter, 
with  characteristic  zeal,  has  unsheathed  his  polemic  sword, 
and,  with  clarion  sounds,  has  in  two  consecutive  volumes 
twice  killed  an  appalling  hydra  of  his  own  creation  nicknamed 
''Campbellism.'' 

Not  being  an  impartial  judge  in  my  own  case,  and  being 
absorbed  in  matters  of  transcendent  moment,  we  found  a 
brother,  comparatively  young, — one  of  the  graduates  of  Beth- 
any College, — into  whose  hands  we  have  fearlessly  confided  this 
gigantic  hero  of  world-wide  fame,  without  one  lingering  doubt 
that  he  will  render  to  him  all  due  honor  and  fully  satisfy  Mr. 
Jeter  that  he  has  as  much  mistaken  himself  as  he  has  his 
subject. 

If  Mr.  Jeter  be  not  yet  satisfied  with  the  honors  done  him 
by  our  brother  Lard,  but  is  still  covetous  of  a  larger  fame,  we 
have  other  brethren  on  hand — even  youths  in  progress — that 
will,  on  the  appearance  of  his  third,  or  at  most  his  seventh, 
exposition  and  interment  of  "  Campbellism,''  confer  upon  him 
the  highest  degree  in  the  Roman  calendar. 


Bethany,  Va.,  1857. 


REYIEW 

OP 

"CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED." 


GHAPTEK  I. 

eeasons  for  the  present  work — biography — title  op  mb. 
Jeter's  book — sects,  clergy,  etc. 

'     SECTION  1. 

Mr.  Jeter's  book  has  now  been  in  the  hands  of  the 
public  for  nearly  two  years.  All  have  read  it  who  felt 
the  inclination  to  do  so,  and  on  its  merits  have  passed 
their  opinions.  It  has  now,  therefore,  taken  its  place 
on  the  shelf,  seldom,  or  never,  perhaps,  to  descend  from 
that  quiet  abode  of  intellectual  labor,  great  and  small, 
to  be  read  a  second  time.  It  may  not  be  amiss  there- 
fore, now  that  it  has  wellnigh  done  its  work,  to  cast 
over  its  pages  a  sober  second  view,  with  the  intention 
of  pronouncing  upon  its  contents  a  more  mature  and 
dispassionate  judgment. 

The  views  "examined"  by  ]\Ir.  Jeter  are  deemed  by 
him  not  sound,  hence  utterly  untenable,  and  fast  be- 
coming obsolete.     They  have  been  published  to  the 

world  in  an  age  of  great  mental  activity,  and,  to  say 

9 


10  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


the  least,  have  nov\'  been  before  the  community  in  their 
present  form  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century.  The 
men,  the  means,  and  the  motives  to  examine  these  views 
thoroughly  have  been  abundant.  Have  they  been  sub- 
jected to  that  examination?  and  if  so,  in  what  way? 

In  the  pulpit  they  have  been  incessantly  assailed. 
Uneducated  preachers,  in  their  rude  and  earnest  style, 
have  pressed  the  attack  with  great  violence.  Learned 
divines,  deep-read  in  the  various  forms  of  heresy  and 
versed  in  the  surest  methods  of  detection  and  exposure, 
have  laid  the  line  and  the  plummet  to  them.  The 
shrewd  disputant  has  attacked  them  with  whatever  of 
skill  practice  can  impart,  and  all  the  hoarded  means 
which  experience  can  collect.  Even  grave  professors, 
with  their  subtle  distinctions  and  rigorous  logic,  have 
tried  them  by  all  the  laws  analysis  can  sup2:)ly  and 
every  rule  induction  can  suggest. 

Nor  have  they  fared  better  from  the  press.  From 
transient  paragraphs  in  daily  sheets  to  the  careful 
strictures  X)f  monthly  periodicals;  from  trashy  letters 
in  weekly  newspapers  to  the  most  elaborate  essays  of 
pamphleteers;  from  the  coarsest  attacks  malevolence 
can  direct  to  the  most  jDolished  critiques  which  learning 
can  produce, — in  all  these  ways  have  they  been  sub- 
jected to  examination. 

And  yet,  notwithstanding  all  this,  and  much  besides ; 
notwithstanding  these  views  are  unsound, — ^utterly  so  ; 
notwithstanding  they  have  wellnigh  spent  their  force; 
notwithstanding  their  hold  on  the  mind  of  the  jDliant 
credulous  public  is  daily  becoming  less  firm ;  notwith- 
standing the  great  and  general  distrust  with  which  the 


REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  11 

awakened  world  begins  to  view  tliem ;  in  a  word,  not- 
withstanding "  The  jReformation,"  in  ^Ir.  Jeter's  own 
language,  "has  proved  a  failure,"  there  yet  exists  a 
necessity — an  inexorable  necessity — for  a  formal,  me- 
thodical, and  masterly  exposition  of  these  views.  Surely 
this  is  not  without  its  significance.  We  may  affect 
contempt  for  a  foe,  may  speak  of  his  broken  ranks  and 
enfeebled  warriors;  but,  while  we  marshal  our  own  forces 
with  so  much  tact,  select  our  positions  with  so  much 
caution,  and  consult  with  our  subalterns  with  so  much 
solicitude,  it  will  be  somewhat  difficult  to  persuade  a 
looker-on  that  no  formidable  enemy  awaits  our  attack. 

But  what  reception  has  Mr.  Jeter's  book  met  with? 
His  brethren  have  received  it  well.  Its  summary  of 
Baptist  principles,  though  neither  fall  nor  strong,  they 
accept  as  sound.  Its  defence  of  these  principles  they 
regard  as  satisfactory.  Its  style  t^ey  pronounce  good, 
its  spirit  excellent.  And,  as  a  refutation  of  the  doc- 
trines it  professes  to  review,  they  have,  or  at  least  per- 
suade themselves  they  have,  a  deep  interest  to  consider 
it  successful. 

!N'or  can  we  doubt  that  it  enjoys  the  favor  of  those 
denominations  who  have  agreed,  with  as  much  pleasure 
and  as  little  justice  as  Mr.  Jeter,  to  pronounce  us  here- 
tics. Those  denominations  agree  with  him  on  the 
points  touching  which  he  dissents  from  us.  The  in- 
terests of  both,  therefore,  being  identical,  their  sym- 
pathies are  mutual.  Hence  they  consent  to  favor  his 
book,  because  his  book  subserves  their  cause.  Xor  has 
he  ever  allowed  himself  for  a  moment  to  overlook  this 
circumstance.    He  has,  it  is  most  evident,  intentionally 


12 


REVIE^Y  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


refrained  iVom  introducing  into  his  book  any  matter, 
lias  studiously  avoided  every  expression,  which  could 
have  given  the  slightest  offence  to  the  parties  whose 
favor  he  hoped  to  secure.  And  the  gentlest  note  that 
warbles  through  his  book  is  the  oft-recurring  te  deiun  to 
orthodoxy.  All  of  which  has  concuiTed  to  render  the 
book  acceptable,  if  not  popular. 

But  ought  the  book  to  be  reviewed  ?  "We  believe  it 
should,  and  for  so  believing,  assign,  from  among  other 
reasons,  the  following  : — 

1.  The  book  as  such  does  us  as  a  people,  but  most  of 
all  our  cause,  great  and  gross  injustice.  This  needs  to 
be  exposed. 

2.  It  has  attained  a  respectable  circulation,  and  hence 
the  injustice  done  has  been  widely  disseminated.  This 
should  be  counteracted. 

3.  It  is  highly  due^  the  cause  we  plead,  or  at  least  so 
much  of  it  as  is  attacked  in  Mr.  Jeter's  book,  that  it 
should  stand  before  the  world,  not  in  the  garbled  form 
in  Avhich  it  there  appears,  but,  as  far  as  this  can  be  ac- 
complished in  a  limited  review,  in  its  own  true  and 
proper  character,  and  resting  on  its  own  jDroper  foun- 
dation. 

4.  It  is  due  ourselves  as  a  people  that  we  should  not 
tamely  submit  to  the  odium  to  which  it  is  the  almost 
sole  intention  of  this  book  to  expose  us. 

5.  It  is  due  the  word  of  God  that  the  scandalous  per- 
versions of  it  with  which  the  book  abounds  should  be 
exposed. 

6.  Justice  to  the  cause  of  truth  demands  that  the 
sophistry  and  unfairness  with  which  !Mr.  Jeter  attempts 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  13 

to  sustain  his  own  doctrines  should  not  be  allowed  to 
pass  unrebuked. 

We  decide,  therefore,  to  review  his  book,  and,  in  so 
doing,  hope  to  make  its  contents  the  occasion  of  achiev- 
ing good, — contents  which,  whether  it  was  designed  or 
not,  have  no  tendency  but  to  evil. 

In  executing  this  task,  we  think  it  best  to  notice  the 
topics  to  be  treated  of  in  the  order,  for  the  most  part, 
in  which  they  are  met  with  in  Mr.  Jeter's  book.  What- 
ever lack  of  method,  therefore,  may  be  discovered  in  the 
present  work,  (and  we  shall  admit  it  to  be  both  great 
and  obvious,)  must  be  attributed  to  the  very  immethodi- 
cal  manner  in  which  he  has  arranged  the  materials  of 
his  own  work.  For,  although  he  has  affected  a  method, 
it  is  only  a  method  of  being  affected. 

Of  Mr.  Jeter's  book  as  a  whole,  we  shall  not,  for  the 
present,  further  intimate  our  appreciation  than  to  say, 
its  style  is  dull  and  haggled,  its  thoughts  narrow,  its 
arguments  absolutely  nil,  its  reflections  trite  and  shal- 
low, its  air  vain  and  pretending,  its  spirit  dissembled 
and  mean. 

SECTION  11. 

But  Mr.  Jeter's  book  has  more  objects  than  one  in 
view.  It  is  intended  to  contain  an  attack  no  less  on  Mr. 
Campbell  himself  than  on  his  views.  On  what  ground 
else  can  we  account  for  the  wretched  biography  of  Mr. 
Campbell  which  it  contains?  There  was  no  necessity 
for  this.  Mr.  Campbell's  private  personal  history  is  not 
the  ground  on  which  his  publislied  views  must  stand  or 
fall.    These  are  to  be  tried  by  quite  a  different  rule 


14 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


But  the  case  admits  of  a  short  solution.  Jeter  hates 
]\ri\  Campbell  with  an  intense  hatred.  Hence,  while 
professing  to  furnish  a  candid  exposition  of  his  errors, 
he  could  not  resist  the  temptation  to  present  a  brief 
sketch  of  his  life,  that  he  might  be  afforded  the  oppor- 
tunity of  giving  expression,  much  as  the  fact  is  sought 
to  be  concealed,  to  this  absorbing  feeling  of  his  heart. 

But  he  had,  besides,  an  additional  reason  for  this 
sketch.  He  feared  to  risk  himself  in  a  grapple  with  ]\Ir. 
Campbell's  views  on  their  own  merits;  and  he  hence 
wished  to  enfeeble  them  by  an  effort  to  make  it  appear 
that  they  have  emanated  from  a  soiu-ce  not  wholly  un- 
attended by  suspicious  and  vitiating  circumstances.  If 
^Ir.  Campbell's  views  have  strength,  reasoned  he,  their 
author,  it  may  be,  is  not  faultless ;  hence  they  must  be 
made  to  appear  attainted  by  being  connected  with  him. 
The  sole  design  of  this  sketch  is  to  present  Mr.  Campbell 
before  the  world  in  a  doubtful  and  half-ridiculous  light, 
and  thus  bring  discredit  on  his  views.  'We  leave  the 
reader,  however,  to  form  his  own  estimate  of  an  effort 
to  blur  a  character  from  which,  nevertheless,  the 
author  of  that  effort  derives  his  sole  distinction  in  the 
world. 

Had  Mr.  Jeter's  book  contained  a  manly  examination 
of  Mr.  Campbell's  real  views,  and  not  so  many  proofs  of 
personal  animosity,  certainly  it  would  have  been  less 
objectionable  than  it  is.  A  strong,  dignified  analysis 
and  examination  of  these,  with  no  indications  of  per- 
sonal ill-will,  would  have  been  received,  however  much 
we  might  have  differed  from  him  in  his  judgments,  in  a 
spirit  of  genuine  kindness. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  15 

He  could  not  even  select  a  title  for  his  book  without 
furnishing  a  verification  of  what  has  just  been  alleged. 
'^CampbeUism"  was  the  only  term  which  could  vent  the 
feelings  of  his  heart.  And  yet  he  knew  no  term  to  be 
more  offensive  to  us  as  a  people.  And  he  should  have 
known  that  it  is  an  act  of  high  discourtesy  to  attempt 
to  designate  the  views  of  any  body  of  believers  by  terms 
which  they  hold  to  be  unjust,  and  which  they  have  re- 
peatedly avowed  do  not  express  them.  And  no  man, 
we  must  add,  but  a  boor  in  feelings,  whatever  may  be 
his  factitious  position  in  society,  will  stoop  to  the  deed. 
The  views  associated  in  the  j^ublic  mind  with  the  term 
^^Campbellism"  are  not  the  views  entertained  by 
Campbell  and  his  brethren.  They  are  such  as  our  ene- 
mies represent  us  as  holding,  and  not  such  as  we  our- 
selves believe  in.  Of  this  fact  we  believe  Mr.  Jeter  to 
be  not  ignorant.  On  what  principle,  then,  except  on 
thai  of  a  willingness  to  become  a  trafficker  in  misrepre- 
sentations and  ojoprobrious  epithets,  could  he  consent  to 
employ  the  term  ?  He  knew  the  term  to  be  one  of  re- 
proach, and  hence  felt  himself  called  on  to  offer  an  ex- 
planation for  using  it ;  and  yet  he  knew  it  became  not  a 
whit  the  less  a  term  of  reproach  for  all  that.  If  a  man 
consent  to  deal  in  slander,  it  is  far  from  being  a  sufficient 
apology  for  his  offence  to  say  he  does  not  mean  his 
slander  to  be  slanderous.  No  apology  can  justify  the 
application  of  this  discourteous  epithet  to  our  views. 
But  the  author's  scanty  vocabulary,  it  would  seem,  is  to 
be  blamed  for  the  use  of  the  term.  It  could  afford 
him  no  descriptive  epithet  for  a  cause  the  merits  of 
which  he  proposes  gravely  and  decently  to  argue ;  and 


16  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


he  is  hence  driven  to  the  use  of  a  term  familiar  to  none 
but  the  charlatan,  save  ]Mr.  Jeter. 

SECTION  m. 

Of  much  that  is  said  in  ^tlr.  Jeter's  book  we  purpose 
taking  no  notice  whatever.  Especially  is  this  remark 
intended  to  apply  to  the  first  part  of  the  book,  in  which 
so  little  is  said  that  is  worth  reading,  and  so  much  less 
that  is  worth  reviewing.  Accordingly,  under  the  cap- 
tion "CamjybeUism  in  its  inceptioii'  occur  but  two  pas- 
sages to  which  we  shall  invite  the  attention  of  the 
reader.  These  we  notice,  because  they  acquaint  us  at 
the  outset  with  that  depth  of  penetration  which  we 
shall  so  fi^equently  have  occasion  to  admire  in  the 
volume  before  us. 

^^It  cannot  be  questioned,'^  remarks  Jeter,  ^'that 
circumstances  exert  a  mighty  influence  in  forming  the 
tastes,  opinions,  and  characters,  and  guiding  the  lives, 
of  most  men 3'^  and  then  on  the  next  page  adds,  "Had 
]Mi\  Campbell  not  passed  his  early  years  in  Scotland, 
his  religious  views  and  career  would  have  differed 
widely  from  what  they  have  been." 

lN"ow,  that  IMr.  Campbell's  views  inigJit  have  differed 
from  what  they  are  at  present  is  certainly  not  impos- 
sible; but  that  they  would  have  differed  is  what 
Jeter  does  not  know,  though  he  scruples  not  to  assert 
it.  But,  conceding  the  truth  of  his  hypothesis,  what 
then  ?  Does  it  follow  that  Mr.  Campbell's  present 
views  are  wrong?  ^'hat  his  views  might  have  been, 
had  the  scene  of  his  early  hfe  been  different,  has  no- 


REYIEY/  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  17 

thing  whatever  to  do  with  the  truth  of  his  present 
views.  Their  truth  rests  on  quite  a  different  founda- 
tion. And  yet  Mr.  Jeter's  position,  if  it  amounts  to 
any  tiling,  amounts  to  this  : — that  Mr.  Campbell's  views, 
because  formed  not  in  America  but  in  Scotland,  are 
wrong;  and  of  course,  by  the  same  conclusive  rea- 
soning, that  Mr.  Jeter's  views,  because  formed  not  in 
Scotland  but  in  America,  are  right !  AYe  admire  his 
complacent  logic  I 

'Mx.  Jeter's  classic  education  has  not  only  had  a  fine 
effect  on  his  fancy,  but  it  has  enriched  his  speech  with 
the  most  choice  selection  of  terms  which  language  can 
afford.  ^^Campbellism,"  mutable  and  transient  as  a 
dream,  dances  through  his  imagination  in  forms  styled, 
with  exquisite  taste,  "inception,"  "chaos/^  and  forma- 
tion." There  are  many  reasons  why  these  terms  should 
have  been  chosen ; .  some  which  even  a  child  can  under- 
stand. Their  number  is  three;  their  syllables,  eight; 
their  letters,  a  score  and  three.  One  is  a  dissyllable, 
the  other  two  are  not;  two  are  trisyllables,  the  other 
one  is  not.  They  can  be  counted,  spelled,  and  accented. 
They  can  be  written,  printed,  and  transposed.  They 
can  be  sung  in  poetry,  read  in  prose,  and  delivered  in 
declamation.  And,  no  doubt,  many  other  like  curious 
and  weighty  reasons  for  their  selection  would  occur  to 
a  person  of  Mr.  Jeter's  penetration;  but  these  are 
enough,  surely,  to  satisfy  even  the  dullest  that  the 
terms  have  been  wisely  chosen. 

Mr.  Jeter  styles  his  second  chapter  "Camphellism  in 

its  chaos;"  and  the  striking  resemblance  between  its 

contents  and  the  meaning  of  a  terni  in  the  heading 
;  B 


18 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


occurs  to  US  as  one  of  the  happiest  coincidences  in  his 
book.  In  the  second  paragraph  of  this  chapter,  he 
says,  "It  would  have  puzzled  the  most  careful,  dis- 
criminating, and  candid  reader  of  the  ^  Christian  Bap- 
tist' to  form  any  clear  conception  of  ]Mr.  Campbell's 
principles  or  aims." 

Eut  few  persons,  we  suspect,  acquainted  with  ^Iiv 
Campbell's  writings,  will  be  prepared  to  admit  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  statement.  From  the  writings  of  no 
author  with  whom  we  happen  to  be  acquainted  is  it 
easier  to  collect  his  principles  and  aims,  than  from  the 
writings  of  ^ilr.  Campbell.  His  leaniing,  accurate  dis- 
crimination, and  fertile  speech,  enable  him  to  express 
himself  with  a  clearness  and  precision  equaled  by  few, 
excelled  perhaps  by  none.  Simple  justice  to  the  cha- 
racter of  a  great  man  demands  that  at  least  this  much 
shall  be  said  in  defence  of  a  style  of  writing  singularly 
strong  and  free  from  doubt. 


SECTION  IV. 

On  the  twenty-fifth  page  of  !Mr.  Jeter's  book,  he 
says,  "'})Lr.  Campbell  aspired  to  the  honor  of  being 
a  reformer."  And  the  emphasis  laid  on  the  word 
"reformer"  hints,  not  very  remotely,  at  the  truest 
pledge  this  clergyman  can  give  of  his  amiable  nature, 
— a  sneer.  But  was  it,  indeed,  under  the  circumstances, 
a  thing  to  be  sneered  at,  to  aspire  to  the  distinction  ? 
"VTe  shall  see. 

"That  a  reformation  was  needed  by  the  Christian 
sects  of  that  time,"  says  Mr.  Jeter,  "none,  who  pos- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  19 

sess  a  tolerable  acquaintance  with  their  condition  and 
the  claims  of  the  gospel,  will  deny.  Indeed,  what 
church,  or  member  of  a  church,  does  not,  in  some 
respects  and  in  some  degree,  need  reformation  ?  There 
was  needed  then,  as  at  all  times,  an  increase  of  reli- 
gious knowledge  in  the  churches;  but,  more  than  this, 
an  increase  of  piety.  The  reformation  demanded  by 
the  times  was  in  spirit  and  practice  rather  than  doc- 
trine. They  were  then,  as  now,  far  too  w^orldly,  for- 
mal, and  inefficient.  Among  the  Baptist  churches  there 
were  some  sad  evils.  In  parts  of  the  country,  the 
churches  were  infected  with  an  antinomian  spirit,  and 
blighted  by  a  heartless,  speculative,  hair-splitting  ortho- 
doxy. These  churches  were  mostly  penurious,  opposed 
to  Christian  missions  and  all  enlarged  plans  and  self- 
denying  efforts  for  promoting  the  cause  of  Christ.  In 
general,  the  careful  study  of  the  Scriptures,  the  reli- 
gious education  of  children,  the  proper  observance  of 
the  Lord's  day,  a  wholesome,  scriptural  discipline,  the 
reasonable  support  of  pastors,  and,  in  fine,  devotion  to 
the  Eedeemer's  cause,  were  too  much  neglected.'' 

Well  may  Mr.  Jeter,  after  this,  admit  that  a  ^^reforma- 
tion"  was  needed  by  the  "  Christian  sects"  of  that  time ; 
and  yet  he  does  not  blush  to  sneer  at  the  man  who 

aspired  to  the  honor''  of  effecting  it.  As  to  whether 
the  reformation  demanded  was  a  reformation  in  spirit 
and  practice  rather  than  doctrine,"  we  shall  leave  those 
best  acquainted  with  the  wretched  state  of  doctrine  at 
the  time  to  decide. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  never  proposed  a  reformation  of 
"CfJiristian  sects''  as  such.    He  proposed  that  all  sincere 


20 


REVIE\\"  OF  CAMPBELLI.3M  EXAMINED. 


and  pious  Christians  sliould  abandon  these  '"sects/" 
and;  uniting  upon  the  great  foundation  upon  which, 
as  upon  a  rock,  Christ  said  he  would  build  his  church, 
form  themselves  into  a  church  of  Christ,  and  not  into  a 
sect."  A  "  Christian  sect"  we  pronounce  simply  an 
impossible  thing.  Sects  there  may  be,  innumerable; 
but  Christian,  as  sects,  they  can  never  be.  A  church 
of  Christ  is  not  a  sect,  in  any  legitimate  sense  of  the 
term.  As  soon  as  a  body  of  believers,  claiming  to  be  a 
church  of  Christ,  becomes  a  sect,  it  ceases  to  be  a 
church  of  Christ.  Sect  and  Christian  are  terms  de- 
noting incompatible  ideas.  Christians  there  may  be  in 
all  the  sects,"  as  we  believe  there  are ;  but,  in  them 
though  they  may  be,  yet  of  them,  if  Christians,  clearly 
they  are  not.  3Ir.  Campbell's  proposition  never  looked 
to  the  reformation  of  sects  as  such.  A  sect  reformed 
would  still  be  a  sect;  and  sect  and  Christian  are  not 
convertible  terms.  Sectarianism  originates,  and  neces- 
sarily, in  the  church,  but  has  its  consummation  out  of 
it.  Hence  Paul,  in  addressing  the  church  at  Corinth, 
says,  There  must  be  also  heresies  {sectarianism)  among 
you,  that  they  who  are  approved  may  be  made  mani- 
fest." But  here  is  something  which  seems  never  to 
have  struck  the  mind  of  Xr.  Jeter.  "With  the  apostle, 
sectarianism  originated  with  the  bad,  and  the  good 
were  excluded ;  but  with  Hj'.  Jeter  it  includes  the  good, 
and  the  bad  are  excluded.  How  shall  we  account  for 
the  difference  ?  As  soon,  however,  as  the  "  heretic" 
(the  sectarian)  is  discovered  in  the  church,  he  is,  by  the 
apostle's  direction,  to  be  admonished  a  first  and  second 
time;  and  then,  if  he  repent  not,  to  be  rejected.  ISTow, 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  21 

we  request  to  be  informed  by  Mr.  Jeter  bow,  according 
to  tbis  rule,  a  "  Christian  sect"  can  exclude  ber  "  secta- 
rians" and  still  remain  a  "  sect"  ?  Heresy  and  secta- 
rianism are  identical,  being  botb  represented  by  tbe 
same  term  in  tbe  same  sense  in  tbe  original;  and  tbat 
wbicb  tbey  represent  bas  its  origin  in  tbe  flesb.  Hence 
tbe  same  apostle,  in  enumerating  tbe  works  of  tbe  flesb, 
mentions,  among  otber  tbings,  strife,  sedition,  heresy^ 
(sectarianism.)  Heresy  or  sectarianism,  we  are  taugbt 
by  tbe  Apostle  Peter,  is  introduced  into  tbe  cburcb  by 
false  teachers,''  and  is  damnable;"  and  yet  Mr.  Jeter, 
witb  true  foster-fatber  tenderness,  can  talk  of  Cbris- 
tian  sects." 

SECTION  V. 

Anotber  peculiarity  of  ^^Campbellism  in  its  cbaos" 
was,  it  seems,  a  most  virulent  attack  on  tbe  "  kingdom 
of  clergy."  Mr.  Jeter's  defence  is  eminently  cbarac- 
teristic,  being  affectionate,  feeble,  and  sbort.  Tbere 
is  sometbing  mournful  and  sad  in  its  melancboly  air. 
ISTor  can  we  wonder  at  tbe  circumstance.  Few  men 
were  ever  more  feared  or  more  bated  by  tbe  clergy 
tban  Mr.  Campbell;  and  few  men  were  ever  more 
clerical  tban  Mr.  Jeter.  Young,  sballow,  and  bigoted, 
tbe  Attic  wit  and  racy  bumor  of  tbe  ^^Cbristian  Bap- 
tist" caused  bim  excruciating  pain.  He  learned  to  sigh 
in  time  long  gone,  and  witb  increasing  age  and  decreas- 
ing strength  bis  sigb  bas  grown  to  a  dirge.  Our  sym- 
pathies are  moved  for  tbe  man.  And  in  tbe  length  and 
painful  nature  of  some  of  bis  labors  tbere  is  much  to 
move  even  a  harder  heart  tban  ours.    Grazing  fo?  thirty 


22  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

years  xntently  into  the  ThircJ.  Ei:)istle  of  Peter/'  where 
his  port  and  bearing  and  all  the  secret  springs  and  mo- 
tions of  his  heart  lie  mirrored  in  lines  so  just  and  true, 
is  an  object  to  move  the  pity  even  of  a  wretch. 

But  was  there  no  just  ground  for  the  attack  on  the 
clergy?  We  shall  let  the  following  picture,  drawn  by 
Jeter  himself,  of  the  truth  of  which  he,  we  pre- 
sume, is  the  best  judge,  answer  the  question.  ^^They 
(the  clergy)  were  by  no  means  faultless,'^  he  observes. 
^^Some  of  them  were  ignorant,  conceited,  and  vain; 
others  were  proud,  haughty,  and  imperious;  others, 
still,  were  hypocritical,  mercenary,  and  base;  and  not 
a  few  were  worldly,  selfish,  and  sycophantic."  After 
this,  it  would  be  an  idle  waste  of  time  to  defend  Mr. 
Campbell's  attack  on  the  reverend  gentlemen  here  so 
happily  and  savagely  described. 

While  admitting  that  ]\Ir.  Campbell  attacked  the 
clergy,  and  at  times,  too,  severely,  we  still  insist  that 
his  attack  was  just  and  discriminating.  To  that  class 
of  them  described  in  the  preceding  extract  he  was,  we 
grant,  not  over-indulgent;  nor  in  this  will  he  be  ad- 
judged to  have  erred.  But  there  were  many  among 
them  whom,  while  he  believed  them  to  be  in  error,  he 
regarded  as  men  of  great  intellectual  and  moral  worth  : 
men  whom  he  loved  sincerely,  and  against  whom  he 
never  let  fall  a  shaft  but  to  correct  some  waywardness 
in  doctrine,  and  then  always  in  a  spirit  of  real  kindness. 
True,  their  treatment  of  him  was  such  as  generally 
entitled  them  not  even  to  his  respect,  much  less  to  his 
esteem ;  and  yet  they  shared  largely  of  both.  When 
Mr.  Jeter  acquaints  himself  with  the   lying,  bitter, 


REVIEAV  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


23 


Smithfield  spirit  with  which  his  clerical  hrethren  of 
that  day  set  on  Mr.  Campbell,  he  will  find  his  stock 
of  charity  exhausted,  and  his  time  consumed,  in  pro- 
viding mantles  to  cover  their  shame,  and  many  a 
reason  to  shrink  from  a  comparison  of  their  conduct 
with  that  of  Mr.  Campbell. 

SECTION  VI. 

But  Campbellism  in  its  chaos"  was  distinguished  by 
another  attack  of  a  nature  still  more  offensive,  if  possi- 
ble, than  the  attack  on  the  clergy.  Mr.  Campbell  ven- 
tured to  question  the  authority  and  doctrinal  soundness 
of  Creeds  or  Confessions  of  Faith.  We  admit  he  did,  and 
maintain  he  was  right.  First,  he  proposed  to  examine 
creeds  historically,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
whence  they  had  sprung,  and  what  their  effects  on  the 
church  had  been.  Second,  to  inquire  into  their  doctrines 
in  order  to  determine  their  intrinsic  value.  Third,  to 
investigate  the  authority  with  which  they  are  invested. 

On  examining  into  the  history  of  creeds,  he  felt  it  to 
be  fully  established  that  they  did  not  originate  with 
Christianity,  neither  with  the  primitive  churches;  and 
that  they  are  hence  without  the  sanction  either  of  Christ 
or  the  apostles.  On  the  contrary,  he  ascertained  that 
they  originated  in  an  age  when  Christianity  is  admitted 
by  all  to  have  been  greatly  corrupted,  and  that  they 
grew  out  of  these  corruptions  and  embody  them,  with  a 
slight  admixture  of  truth.  And,  as  to  their  effects  upon 
the  church,  he  ascertained  that  these  had  been  to  ex- 
clude from  the  church  in  the  days  of  her  corruption,  not 


24  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

the  corrupting  party  always,  but  the  feebler  one,  and 
that  too  without  the  least  regard  to  the  soundness  of  its 
views. 

On  inquiring  into  the  doctrines  of  creeds,  it  was  felt 
that  so  far  as  they  embody  the  doctrines  of  a  party  as 
Buch,  whether  a  majority  or  not,  they  embody  not 
strictly  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  but  merely  the 
party's  opinions,  speculations,  and  metaphysics;  that 
they  are  intended  not  so  much  to  define  matters  on 
which  parties  agree,  as  to  guard  points  on  which  they 
differ;  and  that  hence  their  legitimate  tendency  is,  if 
not  to  create,  at  least  to  perpetuate,  di\dsions. 

And,  in  regard  to  the  authority  of  creeds,  it  appeared 
that  they  are  intended  to  be  authoritative  codes  of  laws 
by  which  the  parties  resj^ectively  adopting  them  cove- 
nant to  be  governed  both  in  their  doctrine  and  in  their 
discipline;  that  parties  decide  their  questions  of  heresy, 
not  by  the  Bible,  but  by  the  creed;  that  a  person  dis- 
senting from  the  creed  is  pronounced  a  heretic,  though 
he  declare  his  belief  in  the  whole  Bible  in  the  fair  con- 
struction of  its  terms;  and  finally,  that  the  forms  of 
church  policy  and  rules  of  discipline  contained  in  creeds, 
though  always  binding  and  frequently  tyrannical,  are 
without  the  semblance  of  authority  from  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. For  these  and  other  weighty  reasons,  Mr.  Camp- 
bell felt  it  to  be  due  the  Savior  to  repudiate  creeds 
altogether. 

In  regard  to  the  propriety  of  having  a  creed,  and  the 
kind  they  should  have,  if  any,  Mr.  Campbell  and  his 
brethren  reasoned  thus : — If  a  creed  contains  less  than 
the  Bible  then  it  contains  too  little,  but  if  it  contains 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


25 


more  then  it  contains  too  much;  and  if  it  contains  any 
thing  different  from  the  Bible  it  is  wrong,  but  if  it  con- 
tains precisely  what  the  Eible  contains  then  it  is  not  a 
creed  but  a  Bible.*  And  if,  they  reasoned  further,  our 
views  of  the  Bible  are  correct,  there  is  no  necessity  for 
publishing  them  to  the  world  in  the  form  of  a  creed. 
As  they  are  already  more  accurately  expressed  in  the 
Bible  than  we  can  possibly  express  them,  we  will  merely 
publish  the  Bible.  But  if  they  are  not  correct,  then 
they  should  not  be  published  in  any  form,  for  the  Bible 
does  not  sanction  the  publication  of  what  is  wrong. 

But  even  Mr.  Campbell,  it  seems,  has  a  creed.  The 
following  is  ^Ir.  Jeter's  language: — "There  is  in  Chris- 
tendom a  great  variety  of  creeds,  from  the  so-called  Apos- 
tles' Creed  down  to  the  ^Christian  System'  composed  by 
Mr.  Campbell  as  an  exhibition  of  the  principles  of  the 
[Reformation.''  But  whether  Mr.  Campbell's  brethren 
have  a  creed  or  not  does  not  appear  from  Mr.  Jeter's 
book.  It  is  presumed,  however,  from  the  following  lan- 
guage, that  they  have  none: — "Every  intelligent  Chris- 
tian,"  he  remarks,  "has  a  creed,  written  or  unwritten.'^ 
Blockheads,  then,  of  course  have  none !  This  is  certainly 
the  reason  why  the  Baptists  have  creeds,  and  likely  the 
reason  we  have  none  ! 

When  Mr.  Jeter  penned  the  assertion  that  the  "Chris- 
tian System"  is  a  creed,  he  must  have  supposed  his  read- 
ers would  be  of  a  class  too  corrupt  to  receive  it  if  true; 

*  I  am  indebted  for  this  fine  argument  to  my  sincere  friend  and  brother, 
Alexander  Proctor,  now  of  St.  Louis,  whose  accurate  learning,  good  sense, 
and  talents,  point  him  out  as  destined  to  be  eminently  useful  to  the  cause 
of  primitive  Christianity. 
8 


26 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


otherwise  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  its  presence  in 
his  took.  It  is  an  assertion  which  we  have  never  met 
with  except  in  the  lowest  class  of  attacks  that  have 
been  made  on  Mr.  Campbell's  views.  "When  we  chance 
with  a  scurrilous  little  pamphlet,  either  denuded  or 
garbed  in  green  or  blue,  clandestinely  circulating  over 
the  country  against  these  views,  among  the  first  things 
we  expect  to  meet  with  on  opening  it  is  the  assertion 
that  Alexander  Campbell  has  a  creed;  but  certainly  we 
had  no  right  to  expect  it  in  the  decent  work  of  a  pious 
clergyman. 

The  term  creed,"  in  its  current  as  well  as  in  its  eccle- 
siastic sense,  denotes  a  Confession  of  Faith.  In  this  sense 
and  in  this  only  does  Mr.  Campbell  use  the  term  when 
objecting  to  creeds.  Of  this  fact  ]VIr.  Jeter  cannot  be 
ignorant.  Why  then  does  he  apply  the  term  to  the 
^'Christian  System"?  Does  he  mean  to  insinuate  that 
the  Christian  System"  is  a  creed  in  this  sense 'r  We 
shall  only  add  that  if  a  good  cause  requires  its  advocates 
to  resort  to  expedients  like  this,  then  the  opprobrium 
of  trickery  should  cease. 


SECTION  VII. 

In  the  course  of  his  comments  on  the  attack  on  creeds, 
Mr.  Jeter  undertakes  to  point  out  what  he  styles  a 
''great  fallacy/'  which,  it  would  seem,  "lurks  in  our 
boasted  purity  of  speech."  As  this  "fallacy  has  never, 
that  we  know  of,  occurred  as  yet  to  any  of  our  breth- 
ren, we  beg  leave  here  to  call  their  attention  to  it.  The 
following  is  Mr.  Jeter's  language: — "They"  (Mr.  Camp- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  27 

bell  and  his  brethren)  ^^do,  it  is  true,  insist  that  their 
members  shall  speak  of  Bible  things  in  Bible  tenns. 
To  restore  a  pure  or  scriptural  speech  is  one  of  the  main 
objects  of  the  Eeformation  for  which  Mr.  Campbell 
pleads.  But  in  their  boasted  purity  of  speech  there 
lurks  another  great  fallacy.  They  do  not  use  Bible  terms. 
The  Bible,  with  a  few  slight  exceptions,  was  written  in 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek  tongues;  and  they  derive  their 
theological  terms  from  a  translation  of  the  Bible  made  by 
fallible  men.'' 

Terms,  then,  derived  from  a  translation  of  the  Bible 
are  not  Bible  terms.  From  this  seedy  premise  the  follow- 
ing conclusions  result : — 

1.  That  a  translation  of  the  Bible  is  not  a  Bible.  For, 
if  the  single  terms  of  a  translation  of  the  Bible  are  not 
Bible  terms,  neither  are  they  collectively.  Hence  they 
cannot  form  a  Bible. 

2.  That  Mr.  Jeter  has  not  produced,  in  his  entire  book, 
even  one  Bible  argument  against  any  view  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell; for  he  has  used  only  a  translation  of  the  Bible. 

3.  That  he  has  not  produced  a  particle  of  Bible  evi- 
dence in  defence  of  his  own  doctrines;  since  the  evidence 
he  has  produced  is  all  cited  from  a  translation  of  the 
Bible.  ' 

4.  That,  for  aught  the  world  can  learn  from  his  book, 
Mr.  Campbell's  views  constitute  the  only  true  and  proper 
exposition  of  Christianity  now  extant. 

This  only  proves  that  he  who  has  resolved  that  he 
will  never  be  just  has,  in  the  act,  resolved  that  he  will 
be  at  times  extremely  foolish. 


28 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


SECTION  YIII. 

Another  blundePj  of  a  kind  which  ^Lr.  Jeter  is  no  less 
capable  of  committing  than  the  preceding,  occurs  on 
p.  40  of  his  book,  in  some  strictures  he  oifers  on  a 

discourse"  he  had  somewhere  heard  Mr.  Campbell  de- 
liver, which,  it  seems,  was  eloquent,  plausible,  and 
sophistical."  The  subject  of  the  discourse,  it  appears, 
was  the  unity  of  the  church  of  Christ.  Mr.  Campbell 
assumed  upon  the  authority  of  the  Bible  that  there  is 
''one  body.''  He  then  argued  that,  since  the  "one  body" 
is  the  church,  the  church  is  hence  a  unit.  Eut  it  was 
not  in  this  that  the  sophism"  consisted,  in  pointing 
out  which  Mr.  Jeter  commits  his  blunder. 

The  term  "church"  is  employed  in  the  Bible  in  two  dif- 
ferent senses, — one  a  more,  the  other  a  less,  comprehen- 
sive sense.  When  used  in  the  former  sense,  it  compre- 
hends the  whole  body  of  Christians  since  the  commence- 
ment of  Christ's  reign  to  the  present.  But,  in  the  latter, 
it  applies  only  to  a  particular  congregation  composed  of 
a  limited  number  of  these  Christians  meeting  at  some 
stated  place  for  worship.  Now,  the  "sophism"  consisted 
in  this: — Mr.  Campbell  left  his  audience  to  infer  that  he 
and  his  brethren  exhaust  the  meaning  of  the  term  in  its 
largest  sense,  i.e.  that  they  alone  constitute  the  body  of 
Christ.  The  following  is  Mr.  Jeter's  language: — "lie" 
(Mr.  Campbell)  "did  not  inform  us,  however,  what  body 
is  the  body  of  Christ.  He  trusted  in  the  intelligence  and 
candor  of  his  hearers  to  infer  that  the  body  of  Christ 
is  the  body  that  embraces  the  ^ancient  gospel,'  and  that 
has  restored  the  ^ancient  order  of  things.'  " 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


29 


'Now,  we  shall  attempt  no  formal  rcplj  to  this.  We 
shall  simply  deny  that  it  is  in  the  memory  of  man  that 
Mr.  Campbell  ever  offered  the  gross  insult  to  his  under- 
standing that  is  here  attributed  to  him. 

That  he  may  have  denied  that  the  Methodist  church, 
or  the  Presbyterian  church,  or  even  the  Baptist  church, 
as  such,  constitutes  the  church  of  Christ,  either  in  whole 
or  in  part,  is  what  we  are  ready  to  believe.  The  term 
'^church,"  as  already  stated,  has  two,  and  but  two,  accep- 
tations in  the  Bible.  In  the  one,  it  includes  the  whole 
family  of  the  elect  since  Christ  to  the  present  time.  In 
this  acceptation  it  is  equivalent  to  the  expression  king- 
dom of  God'^  in  the  passage,  Except  a  man  be  born 
again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  In  the 
other,  it  denotes  a  particular  congregation,  composed  of 
those  who  have  entered  this  kingdom,  meeting  at  some 
stated  place  for  worship,  as  the  church  at  Sardis.  But 
in  neither  acceptation  will  the  term  apply  to  any  one 
nor  even  to  all  the  denominations  just  named.  They 
are  neither  collectively  the  church  in  the  one  sense,  nor 
singly  a  church  in  the  other;  nor  as  denominations  are  they 
even  part  of  the  church  of  Christ  in  any  sense.  Indeed, 
whether  we  view'them  at  large  as  denominations  or  con- 
sider their  individual  congregations,  one  thing  is  certain, 
they  are  neither  in  the  one  capacity  nor  the  other  known 
in  the  Bible,  nor  recognised  by  it,  as  belonging  to  the 
church  of  Christ.  A  Baptist  church  of  Christ  is  as  unreal 
a  thing  as  a  Eoman  Catholic  church  of  Christ,  and  there  is 
as  much  authority  in  the  Bible  for  the  one  as  for  the  other. 
By  this  remark  we  do  not  mean  to  compare  Baptists  as 
individuals  with  Eoman  Catholics.    Yery  far  from  it. 

a* 


30  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

We  speak  of  the  denomination  only,  and  of  this  so  fur 
only  as  it  is  Baptist;  but  we  do  mean  that  thus  far  it 
has  no  more  sanction  from  the  Bible  than  the  Eoman 
Catholic  church. 

If  the  term  Baptist  denotes  not  something  essential  to 
a  Chi'istian  as  a  Christian,  neither  something  essential 
to  a  church  of  Christ  as  such,  then  it  denotes  something 
which  is  not  Christian.  It  then  denotes  an  attribute,  as  far 
as  it  denotes  any,  not  of  a  church  as  a  church  of  Chi'ist, 
but  of  a  church  as  distinguished  from  a  church  of  Christ, 
and  hence  something  not  sanctioned  by  the  Bible.  In 
which  case,  both  what  the  term  denotes  and  the  term 
itself  should  be  rebated  as  essential  neither  to  a  Chris- 
tian nor  to  a  church  of  Christ. 

But  perhaps  Mr.  Jeter  will  say  the  expression  "Bap- 
tist church  of  Christ"  means  no  more  than  the  expres- 
sion "  church  of  Christ."  But  how  can  this  be  ?  The 
expression  "  church  of  Christ"  is  certainly  equal  to 
itself.  And  if  so,  then  of  course  the  prefix  "Baptist" 
means  nothing,  and  hence  should  be  abandoned.  But, 
if  the  expression  "Baj^tist  church  of  Christ"  means 
either  more  or  less,  or  any  thing  else,  than  the  expres- 
sion "  church  of  Christ,"  then  the  expression  "  church 
of  Chi'ist"  means  one  thing,  and  the  expression  "Bap- 
tist church  of  Christ"  another  thing.  And  hence  it 
would  follow,  since  the  Bible  sanctions  only  a  church  of 
Christ,  that  it  does  not  sanction  a  Baptist  church  of 
Christ. 

Indeed,  as  already  stated,  the  term  "Baptist,"  whe- 
ther applied  to  the  individual  or  the  church,  denotes 
something  belonging  to  neither  as  Christian,  and,  there- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  81 

fore,  should  be  disused.  But,  should  it  be  alleged  that  ii 
denotes  merely  the  difference-  between  one  Christian  and 
another,  or  between  one  church  and  another,  then  we 
rejDly  that  no  such  difference  is  sanctioned  by  the  Bible, 
and  hence  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  provide  a  name 
for  it.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  under  obligation  to  seek 
to  cancel  all  such  differences,  as  well  as  all  terms  de- 
noting them.  Now,  these  differences,  whether  between 
one  individual  Christian  and  another,  or  between  one 
church  and  another,  and  all  terms  denoting  them,  are 
precisely,  what  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  brethi-en  propose 
shall  be  abolished.  They  propose  that  nothing  not 
essential,  according  to  the  Bible,  to  the  character  of  a 
Christian,  shall  be  made  a  bond  of  union  or  a  condi- 
tion of  fellowship,  either  among  individual  Christians 
or  churches  of  Christ.  It  is  thus  that  they  propose  to 
abolish  all  sects  and  sectarianism. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  does  not  claim  for  himself  and  his 
brethren  that  they,  as  a  body,  exhaust  the  meaning  of 
the  term  the  church,  nor  that  they  are  the  only  persons 
who  are  members  of  the  church.  Hence,  no  apology  can 
be  pleaded  for  Mr.  Jeter's  dishonorable  insinuation  to 
the  contrary.  Mr.  Campbell  concedes  to  all,  no  matter 
where  found,  who  have  been,  in  the  true  acceptation  of 
the  phrase,  ^^horn  again,''  that  they  are  members  of  the 
church  or  body  of  Christ.  True,  he  believes  many  of 
these  members  to  be  in  organizations  purely  sectarian, 
and  hence  unsanctioned  by  the  Bible.  And  to  all  such 
members  his  counsel  is.  Come  out  of  these  organiza- 
tions. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  does  maintain  that  his  brethren,  as 


32  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

a  denomination,  are  Christian ;  and  that  hence,  so  far  as 
the  body  of  Christ  has  on  earth  a  denominational  exist- 
ence, they  are  that  body.  And  this  is  what  he  denies 
to  any  other  and  to  all  denominations  in  Christendom 
besides.  This  is  the  great  distinction  which  he  believes 
to  exist  between  his  brethren,  as  a  body,  and  all  other 
bodies. 

Again,  he  denies  that  the  individual  congregations  of 
his  brethren,  such  as  are  of  good  moral  character,  can, 
except  in  the  language  of  envy,  ignorance,  or  fable,  be 
denominated  sectarian.  On  the  contrary,  he  insists  that 
each  one  of  them  is,  according  to  the  Eible,  in  the 
strictest  sense  of  the  term,  a  church  of  Christ;  and  that, 
consequently,  so  far  as  the  church  can  be  held  to  have 
a  congregational  existence,  they  exhaust  its  present 
meaning. 

Both  such  congregations,  and  the  denomination  itself 
as  a  body,  are  composed  of  members  who  repudiate 
every  thing  not  essentially  involved  in  the  Bible  view 
of  a  Christian ;  and  who  maintain  the  absolute  necessity 
and  importance  of  all  that  is.  As  a  body  and  as  congre- 
gations they  refuse  to  be  bound  or  governed  by  any  code 
of  laws  except  the  New  Testament,  or  to  acknowledge 
any  other  names  except  the  names  which  it  imposes. 
How,  then,  can  either  be  called  sectarian  ?  Mr.  Jeter  is 
no  more  at  liberty  to  apply  the  term  to  either  than  he 
would  be  to  apply  it  to  the  church  of  God  which  met  at 
Corinth.  We  do  not  say  he  will  not  do  it :  indeed,  we 
know  he  does;  nor  have  we  ground  to  exj)ect  aught 
better  from  him.  It  is  a  peculiarity  of  the  guilty  that 
they  always  seek  to  cover  their  own  crimes  by  im- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


33 


puting  the  same  to  others.  He  will  certainly  call  us 
sectarians. 

SECTION  IX. 

But  the  sorest  and  most  oifensive  feature  of  "  Camp- 
bellism  in  its  chaos''  yet  remains  to  be  stated.  Mr. 
Campbell  ventured  to  attack  the  practice  of  relating  a 

Christian  experience.'"  This,  together  with  his  early 
writings  on  the  subject  of  experimental  religion,  gave 
great  pain  to  the  friends  of  spiritual  Christianity.'^  So 
writes  Mr.  Jeter.  True,  Mr.  Campbell  ventured  to  attack 
the  practice  in  question,  but  on  what  grounds?  Has 
Mr.  Jeter  stated  them?  He  has  not.  Policy  dictated 
to  him  that  what  he  could  not  answer  it  would  be  better 
to  suppress.  Indeed,  after  what  he  has  -written  on  the 
subject,  there  was  little  necessity  to  state  them;  for  if 
we  are  to  believe  the  subject  to  be  part  of  Christianity, 
and  to  accept  his  picture  of  it  as  true,  to  deem  him  its 
friend  and  IVIr.  Campbell  its  enemy,  then  truly  may  it 
be  said  that  it  is  not  from  its  enemies,  but  from  its 
friends,  that  Christianity  suifers  its  chief  disgrace.  Let 
any  one  read  ]Mr.  Jeter's  own  account  of  Christian 
experience,"  bearing  in  mind  that  he  is  defending  it 
against  its  most  powerful  adversary,  that  he  knew 
when  writing  his  defence  that  most  likely  it  would 
have  to  pass  the  ordeal  of  a  review  by  Mr.  Campbell ; 
let  him  then  note  the  things  which  could  not  be  sup- 
pressed and  imagine  those  that  are,  and  he  can  hardly 
fail  to  conclude  that,  if  Christian  experience"  is  a  part 
of  Christianity,  then  the  line  which  separates  the  true 

from  the  fabulous  has  never  been  accurately  determined. 

C 


34  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISIM  EXAMINED. 

"We  here  use  the  plirase  Christian  experience'^  in  the 
only  sense  in  which  it  is  popularly  understood. 

Mr.  Campbell  attacked  the  practice  in  question  for  the 
following  reasons  : — 1.  It  is  not  sanctioned  by  the  Bible. 
2.  The  main  point  in  the  experience  is  a  fiction.  3.  The 
practice  fosters  superstition.  Upon  each  of  these  rea- 
sons it  may  not  be  amiss  to  dwell  for  a  moment. 

1.  The  practice  is  not  sanctioned  by  the  Bible.  This, 
to  a  man  scrupulously  exact  in  matters  of  the  highest 
moment,  and  who  cherished  a  deep  reverence  for  the 
word  of  God,  would  be  enough.  His  conscience  Would  in- 
stantly spurn  the  practice.  He  could  no  longer  consent 
to  impeach  the  Divine  wisdom  by  affirming  that  to  be 
necessary  upon  which  that  wisdom  has  seen  fit  to  be 
silent.  He  could  not  consent  to  cumber  the  hearts  of 
his  brethren  with  a  sense  of  duty  where  the  Master  has 
left  them  free.  He  could  never  be  induced  to  set  aside 
the  word  of  God  to  make  room  for  a  mere  tradition. 
And  yet  all  this  would  give  great  pain  and  cause  great 
scandal  to  the  friends  of  spiritual  Christianity! 

2.  The  main  point  in  the  experience  is  a  fiction.  This 
point  is  the  sense  of  forgiveness  alleged  to  be  felt  by  the 
party  at  the  moment  when  his  sins  are  supposed  to  be 
remitted.  In  his  account  of  the  elements  of  a  "  Chris- 
tian experience,'^  Mr.  Jeter  thought  it  wise  to  suppress 
this.  The  meaning  of- the  expression  sense  of  forgive- 
ness" is  concisely  this : — that  at  the  instant  of  regenera- 
tion the  sinner  is  sensibly  assured  that  his  sins  are 
remitted.  But  this  is  something  which  the  Bible  does 
not  affirm.  Feelings  may  exist,  but  they  prove  not  re- 
mission; impressions  maybe  made,  but  they  teach  not 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  85 

forgiveness.  In  most  instances  we  may  hope  the  un- 
fortunate victim  of  this  delusion  to  be  sincere.  But 
this  alters  not  the  nature  of  the  case.  Whether  he 
feigns  the  existence  of  feelings  that  have  no  existence, 
(which,  we  fear,  is  not  seldom  the  case,)  or  adopts  the 
fictitious  construction  of  others  of  feelings  that  do  exist, 
(which  is  perhaps  more  frequently  the  case,)  the  result 
is  the  same  : — the  point  assumed  to  be  the  evidence  of 
remission  is  a  fiction.  JSTo  -good  man  of  strong  mind, 
and  unwilling  to  be  deceived,  ever  yet  heard  related 
what  is  popularly  called  a  Christian  experience''  with- 
out feeling  himself  deeply  moved  when  that  part  of  the 
farce  was  approached  which  was  to  elicit  a  declaration 
of  the  sense  of  forgiveness.  It  is  difficult  to  say  which  is 
the  greater, — the  pity  of  such  a  man  for  the  deluded 
creature  who  sits  before  him  on  the  inquisitorial  bench 
to  be  plied  with  every  silly  question  which  ignorance  or 
impudence  can  put,  or  his  disgust  for  the  blind  guide 
who  conducts  the  process  of  torturing  the  feelings  of  a 
subdued  and  weeping  sinner  into  every  imaginable  form 
that  is  false. 

8.  The  practice  fosters  superstition.  Of  the  truth  of 
this  there  is  no  more  unmistakable  evidence  than  the 
chary  concessions  of  ^Ir.  Jeter.  That  di-eams,  visions, 
sounds,  voices,  and  spectres,  were  formerly,  as  they  are 
still,  common  elements  in  the  experiences  related,  does 
not  admit  of  being  denied.  These  things  were  related 
in  public  in  the  presence  of  large  audiences.  Many 
hearing  them  believed  them  real.  Hence,  in  seeking 
religion"  these  persons  were  naturally  led  to  look  for 
the  same  marvelous  things  which  others  had  seen. 


86 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


"With  their  superstitious  feelings  thus  highly  excited, 
how  easy  for  them,  to  persuade  themselves  that  they 
had  seen  or  heard  what  had  either  no  foundation  at  all, 
or  none  beyond  their  fancy !  Hence,  if  the  father  had 
heard  a  sound,  nothing  but  a  sound  would  satisfy  the 
son ;  if  the  mother  had  dreamed  a  dream,  the  daughter 
was  a  dreamer  too ;  and  thus  the  weaknesses  of  parents 
became  the  weaknesses  of  their  children,  and  the  super- 
stition of  one  generation  the  superstition  of  the  next. 

Of  these  evils  Mr.  Jeter  is  content  to  say,  "  They  were 
seen,  deplored,  and  op2:>osed  by  all  well-informed  Chris- 
tians long  before  he"  (ilr.  Campbell)  ^'commenced  his 
reformation.'^  'Not  without  many  a  qualification  can 
this  be  accepted  as  true.  One  thing  is  certain : — that 
where  these  well-informed"  Christians  are  still  in  the 
ascendant,  no  perceptible  diminution  of  the  evil  has  as 
yet  occurred. 

But  we  must  not  dismiss  the  subject  without  noticing 
Mr.  Jeter's  attempt  to  prostitute  the  Bible  to  its  sup- 
port. Philip,"  he  says,  ^'did  not  baptize  the  Ethiopian 
eunuch,  who  requested  baptism,  until  he  had  catechized 
him.  True,"  he  continues,  "the  evangelist  j)ropounded 
but  one  question  to  the  candidate;  or,  at  least,  in  the 
concise  narrative  furnished  by  Luke,  only  one  is  re- 
corded,— that,  under  the  circumstances,  being  deemed 
sufficient." 

"Well,  from  Philip's  propounding  one  question  what 
does  Mr.  Jeter  infer?  His  modest  conclusion  is  thus 
stated  : — "This  example,  so  far  from  restricting  pastors 
or  churches  to  this  brief  and  single  question, — a  ques- 
tion never,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  proposed  to  any 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  37 

other  applicant  for  the  ordinance,  in  apostolic  times, — 
fairly  authorizes  them  to  make  such  inquiries  as  the  in- 
telligence, known  characters,  and  circumstances  of  the 
candidates  may  appear  to  require/^  That  is,  one  ques- 
tion put  by  an  inspired  teacher  authorizes  uninspired 
^^pastors  or  churches''  to  put,  if  they  see  fit,  a  thousand, 
or  to  require  a  "candidate"  for  baptism  to  relate  a 
Christian  experience. 

When  the  holy  word  of  God  can  be  thus  scandalously 
perverted  by  its  professed  friends  merely  to  serve  a 
purpose,  for  consistency's  sake  let  the  clamor  of  Chris- 
tians against  infidel  injustice  be  hushed  forever. 

But,  gentle  reader,  will  you  turn  to  the  eighth  chap- 
ter of  the  Acts,  and  read  from  the  twenty-ninth  verse 
to  the  close  of  the  chapter  ?  You  will  observe  that,  on 
approaching  the  eunuch,  Philip  says  to  him,  "Under- 
Btandest  thou  what  thou  readest  V  Eut  this  is  not  the 
"  one  question''  to  which  Mr.  Jeter  refers ;  therefore  read 
on.  You  are  through.  Now  say  whether  you  have 
found  even  one  question  put  by  Philip  to  the  eunuch 
before  he  would  baptize  him.  No.  Such  a  question  is 
not  in  the  passage.  Philip  states  the  condition  on  which 
the  eunuch  might  be  baptized,  but  he  propounds  to  him 
no  question.  But  Mr.  Jeter,  in  his  blind  zeal  to  find  an 
example  which  would  justify  him  in  catechizing  candi- 
dates for  baptism,  confounds  a  condition  with  a  question; 
or,  if  he  has  not  done  this,  then  he  is  guilty  of  invent- 
ing for  the  Bible  what  it  does  not  contain. 


4 


38 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


SECTION  X. 

Eut  Mr.  Jeter  is  in  labor  to  make  it  appear  that 
!Mr.  Campbell  and  his  brethren  are  a  ^^sect."  As  vre 
have  already  alluded  to  this  subject,  but  little  more 
need  be  added  on  it  here.  His  language  is,  ''^h\ 
Cam23bell  now  found  himself  at  the  head  of  a  sect, — 
yes,  of  a  sect.  The  reformers  were  a  sect,  according 
to  the  definition  of  Xoah  Webster  : — '  Sect  :  A  body  or 
number  of  persons  united  in  tenets,  chiefly  in  philoso- 
phy and  religion,  but  constitutiug  a  distinct  party  by 
holding  sentiments  different  from  those  of  other  men; 
a  denomination.^ " 

According,  then,  to  ^Ir.  Jeter  and  Mr.  TTebster,  we 
are  a  ^'  sect.'^  Xow,  we  shall  certainly  not  attempt  to 
deny  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  certain  men  can  call 
us  a  "  sect."  Had  we  lived  in  the  days  of  the  Phari- 
sees, we  doubt  not  they  would  have  called  us  a  "  sect.'' 
Should  we  wonder  at  their  doing  it  now  ?  But  it  is  not 
]\Ir.  Webster  who  styles  us  a  sect,  but  Mr.  Jeter,  who 
applies  his  language  to  us.  Our  defence  is  this : — after 
the  way  which  some  men  call  heresy,  so  worship  we  the 
God  of  our  fathers,  believing  all  things  wl  .ich  are  writ- 
ten in  the  law  and  in  the  prophets. 

But  let  us  put  the  logic  of  3Ir.  Jeter  to  the  proof. 
The  following  is  Mr.  Webster's  definition  of  baj^tism  : — 
^'Hie  application  of  water  to  a  person,  as  a  sacrament  or 
religious  ceremony,  by  which  he  is  initiated  into  the 
visible  church  of  Christ.  This  is  usually  performed  by 
sprinkling  or  immersion."    Mr.  Jeter,  your  witness  is 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  39 

an  honorable  man.  Is  the  case  made  out  ?  If  he  tes- 
tify truly  against  your  adversary,  pray,  sir,  what  is  the 
effect  of  his  testimony  against  yourself? 

But,  again,  says  Mr.  Jeter,  "It  must  be  added  that 
the  reformers  were  a  sect  in  the  sense  in  which  ^Ir. 
Campbell  so  frequently  employed  the  term.  They  had 
all  the  attributes,  and,  eminently  the  spirit,  of  a  sect. 
Their  claim  to  be  considered  the  chwch,  and,  by  emi- 
nence, the  Christian  church,  was  as  baseless,  and  far 
more  preposterous,  than  the  same  claim  vauntingly  set 
forth  by  some  older  and  more  venerable  if  not  more 
worthy  sects.'^ 

"We  understand  !Mr.  Jeter  perfectly,  and  shall  give  his 
paltry  insinuation  the  benefit  of  a  second  publication. 
His  meaning  is  this : — that  our  claim  to  be  considered 
the  church,  and,  by  eminence,  the  Cliristian  church, — a 
claim  which  has  now  been  explained, — ^is  as  baseless  as, 
and  far  more  preposterous  than,  the  same  claim  vaunt- 
ingly set  forth  by  the  church  of  Borne,  which  is,  with 
him,  a  more  venerable  if  not  more  worthy  sect  than  we. 
Within  itself  this  insinuation  is  of  no  consequence 
whatever.  Its  sole  value  consists  in  this : — that  it  is 
the  truest  index  to  its  author's  feelings  we  have  yet 
seen.  Sectarianism,  as  defined  by  him,  consists,  among 
other  things,  to  use  his  own  language,  in  "  the  lack  of 
tenderness  and  forbearance  toward  those  who  dissent 
from  our  views.''  Tried  by  his  own  rule,  in  the  light 
of  the  foregoing  insinuation,  and  how  free  from  the 
stain  of  sectarianism  is  Mr.  Jeter  ? 


40 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


CHAPTEE  II. 

MR.  Jeter's  doctrine  of  the  influence  of  the  spirit  in 

CONVERSION  EXAMINED. 

SECTION  1. 

Passing  over  all  else  ]VIr.  Jeter  has  to  say  on  "  Camp- 
bellism"  in  the  first  one  hundred  and  thirteen  pages 
of  his  book,  as  of  no  consequence  whatever,  we  shall 
now  proceed  to  examine  what  he  has  to  say  on  the 
principles  of  the  system.  We  indulge  the  hope  that 
we  are  now  entering  upon  a  more  pleasing  as  well  as 
more  profitable  task.  Our  interest,  consequently,  in 
our  future  labor  is  much  enhanced.  The  strength  of 
our  cause  is  now  to  be  tried.  Its  principles  are  to  be 
analyzed  and  their  soundness  thoroughly  tested.  Our 
only  regret  is  that  a  greater  master  than  Mr.  Jeter  is 
not  to  conduct  the  process. 

How  long  it  took  to  elaborate  these  principles,  or  the 
precise  period  when  they  were  digested  into  a  system, 
are  points  upon  which  ^Mr.  Jeter  has  not  seen  fit  to  en- 
lighten us.  From  what  he  says,  however,  we  may  infer 
.that  they  were  in  course  of  development  for  a  long 
time,  passing  through  various  transitions  from  their  in- 
ception in  the  fertile  brain  of  Mr.  Campbell  up  to  the 
period  of  fall  formation.  However,  at  last  they  as- 
sumed, it  seems,  the  form  of  a  system.  Into  this  sys- 
tem Mr.  Jeter  boldly  dips,  and  on  its  capital  items 


REVIEW  OF  CAMFBELLISM  EXAMINED.  41 


dwells  at  length,  among  the  chief  of  which  is  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  in  conversion. 

On  this  subject  Mr.  Jeter  states  his  doctrine  thus  :■- — 
There  is  an  influence  of  the  Spirit,  internal,  mighty,  and 
efficacious,  differing  from  moral  suasion,  but  ordinarily 
exerted  through  the  inspired  word,  in  the  conversion  of 
sinners.^' 

Of  this  proposition,  and  of  the  doctrine  it  enunciates, 
we  have,  before  proceeding  to  notice  the  defence  of  it, 
several  things  to  say. 

The  proposition  contains  three  superfluous  terms,  to 
wit :  internal,  mighty,  and  efficacious,  l^o  one  contends 
for  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  which  is  merely  external, 
neither  for  one  which  has  no  might,  nor  yet  for  one 
without  efficacy.    Hence,  the  terms  are  redundant. 

Omitting,  then,  these  three  superfluous  terms,  Mr. 
Jeter's  proposition  reads  thus : — There  is  an  influence 
of  the  Spirit,  differing  from  moral  suasion,  tut  ordinarily 
exerted  through  the  inspired  word,  in  the  conversion  of 
sinners. 

But  this  is,  in  reality,  a  compound  proposition,  and 
equivalent  to  two,  of  which  the  first  may  be  expressed 
thus  : — In  conversion  there  is  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  dif- 
fering from  moral  suasion.  The  second,  thus  : — This  in- 
fluence  is  exerted  ordinarily  through  the  Truth. 

The  first  of  these  propositions  we  may  conceive  in- 
tended to  define  the  kind  of  influence  exerted;  the 
second,  to  state  how  it  is  exerted.  But  the  first  is  not 
successfuL  It  does  not  define  the  kind  of  influence  ex- 
erted, but  merely  says  of  it,  it  differs  from  moral  suasion. 
But  what  it  is  that  thus  differs  we  are  not  informed. 

4* 


42  REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


Of  course  it  is  not  moral  suasion,  since  it  and  moral  sua- 
sion differ :  but  what  else  it  is  we  are  not  told ;  we  are 
merely  told  that  it  differs.  But,  unless  Mr.  Jeter  knows 
what  it  is,  how  does  he  know  that  it  differs  ?  If  he 
knows  not  what  it  is,  for  aught  he  knows  it  may  not 
differ.  But,  if  he  knows  what  it  is,  why  did  he  not  tell 
us  ?  Why  merely  tell  us  that  it  differs,  and  leave  us  to 
suspect  that  he  knows  not  why  he  thus  affirms  ? 

But,  conceding  that  it  differs,  what  does  it  differ 
from  ?  Moral  suasion,  we  are  told.  But  what  is  moral 
suasion?  Suasion  is  defined  the  act  of  persuading.  But 
Mr.  Jeter  is  not  speaking  of  an  act,  but  of  an  influence. 
Let  us  suppose,  then,  that  he  means  by  suasion,  not  the 
act  of  persuading,  but  an  influence  which  persuades. 
Joining  to  this  the  word  moral,  we  have  a  moral  in- 
fluence lohich  persuades,  i.e.  the  sinner  in  conversion. 
What,  now,  can  this  be,  but  the  influence  of  the  Truth 
as  such  ?  If  this  is  not  his  meaning,  his  proposition  has 
none.  In  this  sense,  therefore,  we  shall,  at  all  events, 
venture  to  understand  him. 

When,  then,  Mr.  Jeter  speaks  of  an  influence  differing 
from  moral  suasion,  he  means  an  influence  differing 
from  the  Truth  as  such.  That  we  are  correct  in  under- 
standing him  thus  will  appear  from  the  manner  in 
which  he  defines  this  influence  elsewhere.  It  is,  he 
observes,  ''an  influence  distinct  from  and  above  the  Truth.' ^ 
Or  still  more  clearly,  perhaps,  does  he  express  himself 
in  calling  it  "a  supernatural  agency  in  the  conversion 
of  sinners."  Jointly,  these  expressions  define  with  a 
good  deal  of  precision  both  the  kind  of  influence  for 
which  he  contends  and  ivhat  it  differs  from.    It  is  a 


REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED 


43 


supernatural  influence^  and  is  distinct — i.e.  differs — from 
the  Truth. 

From  this,  and  from  the  fact  that  Mr.  Jeter  believes 
in  the  influence  also  of  the  Truth  as  such,  it  is  clear 
that  he  believes  in  a  plurality  of  influences  in  conversion : — 
one,  simply  an  influence  of  the  Truth  as  such;  the 
other,  an  influence  distinct  from  and  above  the  Truth. 

NoWj  it  is  in  regard  to  this  latter  influence  that  we  join 
issue  with  him.  AYe  utterly  deny  that  such  an  influence 
is  ever,  in  any  case,  present  in  conversion.  And  here 
let  us  be  understood.  We  do  not,  if  it  be  made  a  ques- 
tion of'  mere  power,  deny  the  possibility  of  such  an 
influence.  "We  merely  deny  that  it  is  exerted,  not  that 
it  can  be.  'Nor  will  we,  even  if  it  be  made  a  question 
of  fact,  deny  absolutely  that  it  may  be  exerted.  We 
deny  that  it  is  exerted,  on  the  ground  that  we  have  not 
one  particle  of  evidence  that  such  is  the  case.  This 
extent  hath  our  denial,  no  more.  We  are  the  more 
careful  to  draw  these  distinctions  because,  notwith- 
standing the  great  clearness  and  precision  with  which 
Mr.  Campbell  has  expressed  himself  on  this  subject,  he 
seems  still  to  be,  by  some,  misunderstood.  Hence  much 
of  the  idle  and  irrelevant  talk  with  which  ^Mr.  Jeter's 
chapter  on  spiritual  influence  abounds. 

The  second  of  the  preceding  pro];)Ositions,  as  already 
remarked,  is  intended  to  state  how  this  influence  is 
exerted, — namely,  ''ordinarily  through  the  Truth."  It  is, 
then,  always  exerted,  actually  and  invariably  exerted,  in 
every  case  of  conversion.  Only  is  it  variable  in  the 
mode  of  its  exertion,  being  exerted  sometimes  through 
the  Truth  and  sometimes  without  it. 


4-i  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


Here  now  is  another  point  on  which  we  take  issue 
with  Mr.  Jeter.  We  deny  that  in  conversion  any  in- 
fluence is  exerted  by  the  Spirit  except  such  as  it  exerts" 
through  the  Truth;  in  other  words,  such  as  belongs  to 
divine  Truth  as  such. 

An  issue,  therefore,  is  here  fairly  formed  between  him 
and  us.  He  believes  in  an  influence  in  conversion  '^dis- 
tinct from  and  above  the  Truth:''  we  deny  it.  He  believes 
that  this  influence  is  exerted  ordinarily  through  the 
Truth,  but  sometimes  without  it:  we  deny  that  any 
influence  is  ever  exerted  in  conversion  except  through 
the  Truth.    This  makes  the  difi'erence  between  us. 

Kow,  in  order  to  establish  these  positions  what  has 
Mr.  Jeter  to  do  ?  First,  he  has  to  produce  ft-om  the 
Bible  at  least  one  passage,  which  either  actually  asserts 
or  necessarily  implies  the  existence  of  an  influence  dis- 
tinct from  and  above  the  Truth,  as  an  influence  in  con- 
version. Second,  he  has  to  prove,  since  this  influence  is 
distinct  from  and  above  the  Truth,  that  it  is  ever  exerted 
through  the  Truth.  Third,  that  it  is  ever  exerted  with- 
out the  Truth.  Xor  is  this  requiring  of  him  too  much. 
For  unless  the  existence  of  the  influence,  as  an  influence 
in  conversion,  be  first  shown,  its  exertion,  either  through 
the  Truth  or  without  it,  is  inconceivable.  And  even 
then,  each  mode  in  which  it  is  said  to  be  exerted 
must  be  separately  proved.  For  proving  that  it  is 
exerted  through  the  Truth  would  never  justify  the 
inference  that  it  is  exerted  without  it,  and  the  re- 
verse. 

iSTor  to  all  this  does  !Mr.  Jeter  deem  himself  unequal 
Certainly  he  undertakes  it,  or  at  least  what  implies  it; 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


45 


and  how  well  lie  performs  liis  task,  we  shall  now  proceed 
to  acquaint  the  reader. 

SECTION  II. 

The  testimony  by  which  Mr.  Jeter  proposes  to  esta- 
blish the  reality'^  of  this  influence,  he  denominates 
^'direct  and  scriptural.'^  This  is  the  best,  certainly, 
that  the  nature  of  the  case  admits  of;  and,  should  he 
succeed  in  producing  even  any  such,  we  shall  consider 
him  completely  successful.  Of  this  testimony  we  shall 
hardly  be  expected  to  notice  every  passage  both  quoted 
and  referred  to;  still,  we  shall  notice  as  much,  though  we 
may  deem  it  wholly  irrelevant,  as  our  limits  will  allow, 
and  certainly  every  passage  on  which  any  special  em- 
phasis seems  to  be  laid. 

But  is  it  not  a  little  strange  that  Mi\  Jeter,  after 
assuring  us  that  his  testimony  is  direct,"  should  not 
attempt  to  establish  directly  by  it  the  truth  of  his  propo- 
sition, but,  instead  of  this,  should  proceed  to  state  a 
series  of  subordinate  propositions,  intended,  it  may  be, 
to  imply  its  truth,  and  to  these  adduce  his  testimony? — 
in  other  words,  that  he  should  attempt  to  establish  indi- 
rectly the  truth  of  his  proposition  by  direct  testimony  ? 
But  Mr.  Jeter  is  a  master  of  logic ! 

Of  these  propositions  the  first  is  thus  expressed : — 
"  Conversion  is,  in  the  New  Testament,  described  as  a  birth, — 
a  new  birth, — a  birth  of  the  Spirit." 

Omitting  a  few  of  the  redundant  clauses  with  which 
Mr.  Jeter  rarely  fails  to  cumber  his  assertions,  his 
proposition  reads  thus: — Conversion  is  described  in  the 


46 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


New  Testament  as  a  birth  of  the  Spirit.  'Now,  we  deny- 
that  sucli  a  description  is  contained  in  the  Bible;  and, 
if  our  denial  is  not  true,  it  can  easily  be  shown  to  be 
false.  Let  the  reader  examine,  by  the  aid  of  a  concord- 
ance, every  passage  in  the  Eible  in  which  conversion 
occurs,  and  then  say  whether  he  has  found,  even  in  one, 
such  a  description.  "We  repeat,  it  is  not  in  the  Bible. 
Had  ]VIr.  Jeter  merely  said  conversion  is  equivalent  to 
the  new  birth,  or  something  to  that  effect,  the  assertion 
might  have  been  allowed  to  pass  as  substantially  correct 
or  harmless;  but  he  says  conversion  is  described  in  the 
JSfew  Testament  as  a  birth  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  then  not 
merely  described;  it  is  described  in  the  New  Testament, 
described  as  a  birth, — nay,  more,  as  a  birth  of  the  Spirit. 
This  reckless  proposition  teems  with  falsehood.  There 
is  not  a  truthful  feature  in  it. 

But  perhaps  we  should  do  !Mr.  Jeter  injustice  were  we 
not  to  subjoin  the  passages  on  which  he  seems  to  rest 
its  truth.  They  are  two,  the  first  of  which  is  the  follow- 
ing:— ^'That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  But 
does  this  passage  contain  a  description  of  any  thing? 
especially,  does  it  contain  a  description  of  one  thing  as 
another?  plainly,  does  it  contain  a  description  of  con- 
version as  a  birth  of  the  Spirit?  The  most  vulgar  common 
sense  perceives  it  does  not.  But  perhaps  Mr.  Jeter  will 
say  he  cited  the  passage  merely  to  prove  that  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  being  born  of  the  Spirit.  If  so,  we  shall 
only  add,  he  cited  it  to  prove  what  we  at  least  have 
never  denied. 

The  second  of  these  passages  is  the  following: — "We 
know  that  whosoever  is  born  of  God  sinneth  not;  but 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


47 


he  that  is  begotten  of  God  keepeth  himself,  and  that 
wicked  one  toucheth  him  not.''  Had  this  passage  been 
adduced  to  ]orove  the  impeccability  of  human  nature  in 
certain  conditions,  or  that  Satan  is  denied  the  power  to 
touch  a  Christian,  many,  perhaps,  might  have  thought 
it  relevant.  Eut  Mr.  Jeter  adduces  it  to  prove  that  con- 
version is  described  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  birth  of  the 
Spirit;  and  full  as  well  might  he  have  adduced  it  to 
prove  the  imponderable  nature  of  heat,  or  that  there  is 
such  a  place  as  the  fabled  Styx.  Merely  quoting  the 
passage  in  connection  with  the  proposition  it  was  in- 
tended to  prove  best  shows  the  unwarrantable  use  he 
attempts  to  make  of  it.  We  shall  therefore  dismiss  it 
without  an  additional  remark. 

But  whether  conversion  is,  in  the  New  Testament, 
described  as  a  birth  of  the  Spirit  or  not,  is  little  to  Mr. 
Jeter's  purpose.  It  is  freely  granted  that  the  l^ew 
Testament  teaches  the  doctrine  of  a  new  birth,  but 
utterly  denied  that  it  teaches  the  figment  which  he  calls 
the  new  birth.  ISTor  is  it  at  all  material  to  his  con- 
clusion that  conversion  shall  be  considered  a  birth  in  any 
sense.  His  position  is,  that  in  the  nev)  birth  the  divine 
nature  is  conveyed;  and  that  this  conveyance  is  effected  by 
the  peculiar  spiritual  influence  for  which  he  contends.  This 
position  made  good,  we  shall  frankly  grant  he  has  car- 
ried his  point.  Eut,  that  we  may  appear  to  do  him  no 
injustice  when  we  represent  him  as  holding  so  strange 
a  position,  we  shall  quote  his  own  language. 

There  is,'^  he  remarks,  a  resemblance  between  gene- 
ration, or  the  natural  birth,  and  conversion.  .The  Spirit 
of  inspiration  has  employed  this  resemblance  to  elucidate 


48 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


the  subject  of  man's  moral  renovation.  In  physical 
generation  the  nature  and  qualities  of  the  parent  are 
conveyed  to  the  child.  Adam  begat  a  son  in  his  own 
likeness.  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  fleshy — that 
is,  not  merely  corporeal,  but  depraved,  corrupt,  partak- 
ing of  man's  fallen  nature,  as  the  term  ^ flesh'  frequently 
means.  So,  in  the  new  birth,  the  nature — the  moral 
nature — of  the  Spirit — of  God — is  conveyed  to  his  off- 
spring ....  The  argument,  in  brief,  is  this : — that  the 
new  or  moral  birth — impl^'ing  a  communication  of  the 
divine  nature — is  effected  not  merely  by  the  written 
word,  but  is  ascribed  to  a  voluntary  and  efficient  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Here  now  it  is  deliberately  asserted, — ^flrst,  that  in 
conversion tAe  divine  nature  is  communicated;  second,  that 
this  communication  is  effected  by  a  voluntary  and  effi- 
cient agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which,  in  ]\Ir.  Jeter's 
dialect,  means  a  "supernatural  agency." 

But  is  the  divine — is  any  nature  communicated  in  con- 
version? To  propound  the  ridiculous  question  is  to 
obtain  sentence  against  it.  It  is  difficult — indeed,  im- 
possible— with  those  who  receive  such  nonsense  to  suc- 
ceed in  refuting  it.  'Nor,  fortunately,  is  any  thing  of  the 
sort  very  necessary,  since  the  doctrine  is,  by  its  very 
extravagance,  completely  refuted.  Candidly,  does  Mr. 
Jeter  himself  beheve  it?  Does  he  suppose  others  will 
believe  it  ?  Does  he  think  the  human  mind  so  ductile, 
so  easily  warped,  that  it  can  be  duped  into  the  belief  of 
a  thing  so  utterly  fabulous ?  Alas  for  the  world  if  he 
has  not  reckoned  too  far  on  the  pliancy  of  its  credulity, 
if  he  so  thinks  I 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  49 

Still,  as  the  doctrine  is  brought  forward  in  a  grave 
argument,  intended  to  settle  a  great  question,  we  must 
devote  to  it  a  more  minute  attention.  What  then  does 
Mr.  Jeter  mean  by  "the  divine  nature"?  He  means 
"the  moral  nature — of  the  Spirit — of  God."  But  what 
he  means  by  this  latter  expression  he  has  furnished  us 
no  means  of  knowing.  From  the  leading  text,  how- 
ever,— which  he  cites  to  prove,  it  would  seem,  that  this 
nature  is  "conveyed"  in  conversion, — we  may  infer  that 
he  means  spiritual-mindedness  or  spirituality.  This  text 
we  have  already  had  occasion  slightly  to  notice,  namely : 
— "That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit,"  upon 
which  ^L.'.  Jeter  ventures  to  ring  the  following  changes : 
— "  That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit, — resembles 
the  Spirit,  partakes  of  his  holiness, — is  spiritual."  Spirit- 
uality, then,  or  a  nature  resembling  that  of  the  Spirit 
and  partaking  of  its  holiness,  is,  we  conclude,  what  he 
means  by  the  expression  "moral  nature — of  the  Spirit 
— of  God."  But  it  was  not  to  define  the  sense  in  which 
he  employs  this  expression  that  he  cited  the  passage, 
but  to  prove  that  the  nature  of  which  he  speaks  is  con- 
veyed in  conversion.  It  will  then  be  necessary  to  look 
yet  a  little  more  closely  into  the  meaning  which  he 
attaches  to  the  passage,  as  well  as  into  its  force  as  evi- 
dence of  what  he  cites  it  to  prove. 

By  what  law  of  language,  then,  does  Mr.  Jeter  trans- 
mute the  substantive  Spirit  into  the  adjective  spiritual P 
"We  utterly  deny  that  he  has  the  right,  in  violation  of 
the  known  laws  of  interpretation,  to  trifle  thus  with  the 
word  of  God  merely  to  serve  a  purpose.  The  passage 
does  not  say,  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spiritual; 

5  D 


50  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

neither  is  this  its  meaning.  It  says,  that  which  is  born 
of  the  Spirit  is  spirit,  positively  and  materially,  if  we 
may  so  speak, — spirit;  not  spiritual,  nor  yet  spirituality, 
but  spirit.  That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  the  Holy 
Spirit,  is  spirit,  the  human  spirit;  or,  more  fully  still, 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  changed  or  quick- 
ened by  it,  is  the  spirit  of  man,  his  mind.  The  passage 
teaches  that  in  that  great,  vital,  and  inconceivably  im- 
portant renovation  denoted  by  the  expression  ^'born  of 
the  Spirit,^'  it  is  the  spirit  of  man,  his  intellectual  and 
moral  nature,  that  is  the  subject  of  it.  This  is  its  mean- 
ing, this  its  value.  We  grieve  to  see  a  passage  which, 
like  this,  contains  a  great  truth,  fall  into  the  hands 
of  a  man  who  can  transmute  it  into  a  prop  for  the  tame 
fantasies  of  his  own  brain. 

Once  more,  let  the  reader  closely  inspect  the  passage 
in  hand;  let  him  dissect  it,  reduce  it  to  its  simplest 
clauses,  examine  each  of  these  attentively,  then  each 
word;  then  let  him  reconstruct  the  passage,  and,  look- 
ing broadly  over  it  a  last  time,  say  whether  he  can  dis- 
cover in  it  the  doctrine  that,  in  conversion,  the  nature,  the 
moral  nature,  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is  conveyed.  "We  ask  no 
more. 

But  we  seem  to  have  forgotten  the  ^^resemblance'' 
between  the  natural  birth  and  the  new,  on  which  alone, 
after  all,  Mr.  Jeter's  whole  argument  turns.  If,  how- 
ever, the  new  birth  consists  (as  he  maintains  it  does)  in 
being  merely  quickened  by  the  SjDirit,  then  we  affirm 
that  there  is  nothing  analogous  to  it  known  to  him  in 
heaven  or  in  earth.  There  is,  we  grant,  an  analogy  be- 
tween the  new  birth,  as  defined  in  the  ]S'ew  Testament, 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  51 

and  natural  birth;  but  between  the  new  birth,  as  quali- 
fied by  him,  and  natural  birth,  there  is  no  analogy.  The 
new  birth,  as  qualified  by  him,  has  no  fi^undation  either 
in  revelation  or  in  nature,  and  hence  bears  no  resem- 
blance to  any  created  or  uncreated  thing. 

But  the  new  birth  is  not  a  birth  in  the  sense  in  which 
natural  birth  is  a  bii*th.  Indeed,  what  is  called  the  new 
birth  is  not  a  hirth.  It  is  merely  an  event  analogous  to 
a  birth,  and  is,  fi)r  that  reason,  called  a  birth.  Hence,  it 
does  not  belong  to  the  same  class  of  events  with  natural 
birth,  and,  consequently,  wo  cannot  reason  from  the  one 
to  the  other  as  though  it  did.  Yet  this  is  just  what  Mr. 
Jeter  does.  He  reasons  from  the  natural  birth  to  the 
new  as  if  they  wer-e  both  events  of  the  same  class ;  and 
as  if,  consequently,  he  had  the  right  to  infer  that 
whatever  is  true  of  the  one  is  also  true  of  the  other. 
But  this  can  be  done  (and  then  only  with  probable  cer- 
tainty) where  events  do  certainly  belong  to  the  same 
class,  and  not  where,  as  in  the  present  instance,  they  are 
merely  analogous. 

It  is  now  easy  to  see  hew  Mr.  Jeter  has  fallen  into  his 
error.  He  cannot  know  d  priori  that  the  divine  nature 
is  conveyed  in  conversion ;  neither  does  the  Bible  teach 
it.  On  what  ground,  then,  does  he  assert  it  ?  Simply 
on  the  ground  of  a  resemblance  between  the  new  birth 
and  the  natural,  in  the  latter  of  which,  natui'e  is  com- 
municated. But,  unless  Ihe  new  birth  resembles  the 
natural  in  all  respects,  (which  it  does  not,)  or  is  known 
to  resemble  it  in  this,  (which  is  not  known,)  this  conclu- 
sion does  not  follow, — as  it  clearly  does  not. 

From  all  the  premises,  therefore,  now  before  us,  we 


52 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


conclude  that  ILr.  Jeter's  doctrine,  that  in  conversion 
the  divine  nature  is  communicated,  is  a  sheer  fiction; 
and  his  conclusion,  that  it  is  effected  by  an  influence  of 
the  Sjjirit  distinct  from  and  above  the  Truth,  a  gross 
non-sequitur. 

SECTION  III. 

Jeter  states  his  second  proposition  thus: — ^^Con- 
version is  termed  in  tfie  Scriptures  a  creation,  and  is  de- 
scribed in  a  variety  of  language  of  similar  import.'' 

The  train  of  argument  implied  in  this  proposition  is 
this : — It  is  first  assumed  that  conversion  and  creation 
are — not  identical  events  sui-ely,  but  yet  so  very  similar, 
that  whatever  power  is  necessary  to  create  is  necessary 
to  convert;  and  then  inferred,  since  almighty  power 
alone  can  create,  that  it  alone  can  convert.  Of  course 
the  reader  is  left  to  infer  (a  thing  which  he  can  easily 
do)  that  almighty  power,  and  the  influence  of  the  Spirit, 
for  which  ^»Ir.  Jeter  contends,  are  the  same.  Xow, 
clearly,  the  first  thing  to  be  done  in  order  to  establish 
this  proposition  is  to  show  the  near  resemblance  be- 
tween conversion  and  creation  which  makes  them  alike 
dependent  on  the  exertion  of  the  same  power.  But  yet, 
on  this,  although  the  very  point  on  which  his  whole 
argument  depends,  he  bestows  not  so  much  as  a  single 
remark. 

But,  in  attempting  to  sustain  this  proposition,  !Mr. 
Jeter  has  certainly  committed  the  error  of  employing 
the  term  '^creation,"  in  his  proposition  and  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  it,  in  one  sense,  but  in  his  conclusion  in  a 
very  different  sense.    He  asserts — in  which,  however, 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLIS31  EXAMINED.  53 

as  usual,  lie  is  not  correct — that  conversion  is  termed  in 
the  Scriptures  a  creation.  Eut,  conceding  for  tlie  pre- 
sent that  he  is  correct,  is  it  termed  a  creation  in  the 
literal  acceptation  of  the  term?  3Ir.  Jeter  alone  will 
say  it  is.  In  a  meta^^horical  sense  only  can  the  term 
creation  be  applied  to  conversion.  Yet  he,  as  if  not 
in  the  least  aware  of  this,  proceeds  to  discuss  his  pro- 
position using  the  term  literally,  and  then,  when  he 
comes  to  di'aw  his  conclusion,  erroneously  infers,  since 
the  term  literally  implies  the  exertion  of  almighty 
power,  that  almighty  power  is  exerted  in  conversion. 
Eut  a  moment's  reflection  ought  to  satisfy  even  him 
that  when  he  terms  conversion  a  creation  he  is  not  using 
the  term  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is  said,  in  the 
Eible,  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  Here  it 
denotes  not  merely  to  modify  or  renovate, — the  only 
sense  in  which  it  can  apply  to  conversion, —  but  abso- 
lutely and  literally  to  originate.  But  in  this  sense  it  can 
never  apply  to  conversion. 

Eut,  waiving  any  thing  farther  on  this  point,  we  shall 
not  hesitate  to  admit  that  Mr.  Jeter  has  established  the 
conclusion  he  aims  at,  provided  he  succeeds  in  showing 
that  the  creation  of  which  he  speaks  is  effected  by  an 
influence  of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  and  above  the  Truth  j 
— a  supernatural  agency.'' 

The  first  passage  which  he  urges  in  defence  of  his  pro- 
position is  the  following  from  the  prophet  Ezekiel : — ^'A 
new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  1 
put  within  you :  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart 
out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh." 

On  this  passage  three  questions  arise.    First,  is  it  ap- 

6* 


5-i  REVIEW  OE  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

plicable  to  the  present  time  ?  Second,  is  it  applicable  to 
the  present  question  ?  Third,  in  what  acceptation  is  its 
language  to  be  taken  ?  To  the  first  question  we  reply, 
the  passage  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  to  his  countrymen 
during  their  seventy  years'  captivity  in  Babylon,  and 
is  by  the  context  strictly  limited  to  the  time  then  present 
and  the  times  immediately  succeeding.  To  the  second 
we  reply,  the  passage,  having  no  reference  whatever  to 
the  present  time,  can  have  none  whatever  to  the  present 
question,  to  which  it  was  never  intended  to  apply;  and 
when  so  used  it  is  scandalously  perverted.  To  the  third 
we  respond,  the  language  of  the  passage  is  unquestion- 
ably figurative.  Had  the  Jews  literally  hearts  of  stone, 
and  was  it  the  intention  of  the  Lord  literally  to  take 
these  hearts  out  of  them  ?  Did  he  intend  literally  to  re- 
place these  hearts  with  hearts  of  flesh,  and  literally  to 
put  within  the  people  other  and  new  spirits  besides  their 
own  ?  To  ask  these  questions  is  to  answer  them.  The 
stony  heart  was  simply  the  hard  or  intractable  heart 
on  account  of  which,  and  the  vrickedness  to  which  it 
had  led,  the  Jews-  were  carried  away  into  captivity. 
The  heart  of  flesh  and  the  new  spirit  were  simply  the 
subdued  spirit  and  pliant  disposition  which  their  hard- 
ships while  in  exile  had  the  efi'ect,  in  the  providence  of 
God,  to  work  out  for  them. 

And  yet,  of  this  change,  so  perfectly  natural  and  so 
easily  accounted  for,  ^Ir.  Jeter  says,  it  was  ^^a  work 
which  neither  men  nor  angels  could  perform.'^  So 
thought  not  the  Lord,  it  seems,  when,  by  the  same  pro- 
phet, he  said  to  the  same  people,  ^'  Make  you  a  new  heart 
and  a  new  spirit:  for  why  will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Is- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  OD 

rael'r"'  And  as  to  Tvliellier  angels  could  have  performed 
the  work  or  not,  we  dare  not  say,  and  feel  confident  Mr. 
Jeter  does  not  know,  though  he  blushes  not  to  assert  it. 
But  of  one  thing  we  feel  profoundly  convinced : — that  the 
passage  does  not  teach  that  conversion  is  effected  by  a 

supernatural  agency'^  of  the  Spirit. 

Mr.  Jeter's  next  and  last  proof  that  conversion  is  a 
creation  is  the  following  :  —  ^^For  we  are  his  workman- 
ship, created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which 
God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in 
them." 

This  looks  more  respectable  than  any  thing  we  have 
yet  had.  The  "passage  contains  the  word  '^created,"  and 
sinners  are  converted,  ^^ow,  the  question  is,  first,  in 
what  sense  are  Christians  created?  and,  second,  by 
what  power  are  sinners  converted?  As  a  physical 
creation  is  not  contended  for,  but  only  a  renovation,^' 
the  first  question  may  be  disposed  of  at  once.  The  only 
remaining  question  then  is,  by  what  power  or  influence 
is  the  sinner  converted  ?  Since  the  effect  itself,  a  reno- 
vation, is  a  moral  effect, — an  effect  produced  upon  the 
mind  of  a  moral  agent, — the  power  producing  it  must  of 
course  be  moral.  It  must  be  the  power  which  resides 
in  light,  when  presented  to  the  mind  in  sufiicient  quan- 
tity, to  influence  the  judgment,  and  in  the  power  of  mo- 
tives to  determine  the  will.  But  in  nothing  save  the 
gospel  does  this  power  reside ;  for  it  is  the  power  of  God 
(both  in  respect  to  light  and  motives)  for  salvation  to 
every  one  that  believes  it. 

But  ]\Ir.  Jeter's  language  would  seem  to  warrant  a 
different  conclusion.     The  word  employed  in  this  text," 


56 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


he  remarks,  ^'to  denote  this  renovation, — created,  (xtc^o/,) 
— is  employed  to  express  that  exercise  of  power  by 
which  the  universe  was  brought  into  existence.  (Eph. 
iii.  9;  Col.  i.  16.)  No  energy  short  of  that  which 
brought  order  out  of  chaos  can  renew  the  soul  of  man. 
That  soul  is,  in  its  natural  state,  a  moral  chaos, 
— dark,  void,  formless;  and  nothing  but  almighty 
power  and  infinite  grace  can  restore  it  to  life,  light, 
and  beauty." 

At  times  Mr.  Jeter  grows  exceedingly  orthodox;  as, 
for  example,  in  this  extract.  So  straight,  indeed,  is  he 
at  times,  that  he  even  appears  a  little  bent;  and  so 
very  sound,  that  even  the  orthodox  may  well  susiDCct 
him  for  a  heretic.  Clearly,  the  spirit  was  on  him  while 
vaulting  the  foregoing.  Eut  on  what  ground  rests  his 
broad  conclusion?  Obviously,  on  the  ground  that  the 
word  created"  has  but  one  meaning,  and  that  a  literal 
one.  This  is  essential — absolutely  so — to  his  conclusion ; 
and  yet,  if  he  knows  any  thing  about  the  meaning  of 
the  term,  he  knows  this  to  be  f\ilse.  When  applied  to 
creation,  the  term  has  not  the  same  meaning  that  it  has 
in  the  passage  in  hand,  or  when  applied  to  conversion. 
Creation  is  one  thing,  conversion  quite  another;  hence, 
the  same  term  in  the  same  sense  can  never  exj^ress 
them  both. 

SECTION  IV. 

Mr.  Jeter  states  his  fourth  proposition  thus  : — Con- 
version is  described  as  a  resurrection  from  the  dead." 

And  he  adopts  the  same  fallacious  course  of  argument 
to  establish  it  which  he  employs  in  the  preceding  simi- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  57 

lar  instances.  He  first  assumes  that  conversion  is  a 
resurrection;  and  then,  because  almighty  power  was 
exerted  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  infers  that  the  same 
is  exerted  in  conversion.  But  this  is  not  fair.  Con- 
version is  not  a  resurrection,  even  conceding  that  it  is 
one  at  all,  in  the  sense  in  which  Christ  was  raised  from 
the  dead.  If  it  were,  then  it  would  be  allowable  to 
argue  from  the  one  event  to  the  other.  But  the  most 
that  can  possibly  be  said  of  the  two  events  is,  that  they 
are  merely  ^^nalogous ;  hence,  they  do  not  necessarily 
imply  the  exertion  either  of  the  same  kind  or  the  same 
degree  of  power. 

The  first  passage  quoted  by  Mr.  Jeter,  in  defence  of 
his  present  proposition,  is  the  following  : — "  But  God, 
who  is  rich  in  mercy,  for  his  great  love  wherewith  he 
loved  us,  even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins,  hath  quick- 
ened us  together  with  Christ;  (by  grace  ye  are  saved.'') 

Here  it  is  distinctly  said  that  God  made  the  Ephc- 
sians,  who  had  been  dead  in  sins,  alive:  but  did  he 
make  them  alive  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  made 
Christ  alive,  when  he  brought  him  from  the  dead  ?  If 
not,  on  what  ground  can  ilr.  Jeter  assert  that  we  are 
converted  by  the  same  "  energy  which  raised  Christ 
from  the  dead"  ?  His  error  lies  in  supposing  that, 
because  two  merely  analogous  events  are  described  by 
the  same  word, — it  being  used  in  the  one  case  literally 
and  in  the  other  metai)horically, — they  have  both  re- 
sulted from  the  same  power.  But  this  is  manifestly 
erroneous;  and  yet  he  persists  in  affirming  that  ''the 
Ephesians  were  quickened  by  the  same  power  that 
raised  Christ  from  the  dead/'  and,  without  the  sem  • 


58 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


blance  of  authority,  asserts  it  to  be  clear  from  the 
context."  The  "  context"  to  which  he  alludes  is  the 
following  petition  of  the  aj^ostle  for  the  church  at 
Ephesus  : — "  That  ye  may  know  what  is  the  exceeding 
greatness  of  his  power  to  us-ward  who  believe,  accord- 
ing to  the  working  of  his  mighty  power,  which  he 
wrouo;ht  in  Christ  when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead." 
Mr.  Jeter  takes  for  granted  what  everybody  except 
himself  knows  is  not  true;  namely,  that  to  believe 
according  to  the  working  of  God's  mighty  power  is 
to  believe  because  that  power  is  exerted  in  us.  We 
believe,  it  is  true,  according  to,  or  in  conformity  with, 
the  working  of  God's  mighty  power.  But  on  whom  was 
that  power  exerted,  and  ivhen  ?  On  ws  when  we  believed? 
Certainly  not;  but  on  Christ  when  God  raised  him  from 
the  dead.  By  that  fact  was  Christ  '^declared  to  be 
the  Son  of  God ;"  and,  when  we  believe  that  fact,  we 
believe  according  to  the  power  which  produced  it.  To 
a  discriminating  mind  this  needs  no  further  illustration. 

Mr.  Jeter's  next  "  direct,  scriptural  proof"  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  exerts  an  influence  in  conversion,  "  distinct 
from  and  above  the  Truth,"  is  the  following : — "  I  have 
planted,  Apollos  watered :  but  God  gave  the  increase. 
So,  then,  neither  is  he  that  planteth  any  thing,  neither 
he  that  watereth  :  but  God  that  giveth  the  increase." 

The  clause  "  God  gave  the  increase"  is  that  on  which 
Mr.  Jeter  doubtless  relies,  as  containing  his  "proof" 
But  whatever  a  passage  does  not  actually  assert  or  neces- 
sarily imply,  it  does  not  teach.  Now,  does  the  passage 
actually  assert  that  the  Corinthians  were  converted  by 
an  "influence  distinct  from  and  above  the  Truth"?  or 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


59 


does  it  even  necessarily  imply  it?  Obviously,  it  does 
not  assert  it.  Unless,  then,  it  necessarily  implies  it, 
it  does  not  teach  it.  "Will  ^Lr.  Jeter  affirm  that  the 
passage  necessarily  implies  it?  If  so,  we  demand  on 
what  ground?  Is  it  because  God  cannot  give  the  in- 
crease in  any  other  way?  Mr.  Jeter  is  not  ashamed 
to  represent  Mr.  Campbell  as  ^^prescribing"  a  limit" 
to  the  power  of  the  Spirit :  is  he  now  prepared  to 
assume  the  odious  position  himself?  If  not,  he  will 
not  think  us  unreasonable  when  we  request  him  to 
dispose  of  the  argumentum  ad  hominem. 

A  passage  of  Scripture  is  to  be  taken  not  in  the  whole 
extent  of  its  possible,  but  only  in  the  whole  extent  of  its 
actual  and  necessary,  signification.  Whatever  falls  not 
legitimately  within  these  limits  is  not  matter  of  faith,  but 
matter  of  speculation.  Doctrines  taught  only  by  possible 
implication  are  doctrines  untaught,  to  which  class  clearly 
belongs  the  doctrine  of  an  influence  in  conversion  dis- 
tinct from  and  above  the  Truth."  The  most  that  can 
possibly  be  claimed  for  it  in  the  present  instance,  if  even 
this  much  can  be  claimed,  is,  that  it  is  not  impossible  it 
may  be  implied.  But  are  we  to  be  called  upon  to  believe 
a  doctrine  true,  to  believe  it  taught  by  the  holy  word 
of  God,  merely  because  it  is  not  impossible  some  passage 
may  imply  it  ?  We  cannot  think  so.  And  this  is  our 
sin.  For  this  we  must  be  proscribed  as  heretical  by 
such  men  as  Mr.  Jeter.  But,  if  mere  possible  implication 
is  the  rule  which  orthodoxy  and  her  votaries  prescribe, 
then  we  dissent  from  their  canon,  and  proudly  accept,  as 
the  chief  distinction  which  they  can  bestow,  the  charge 
of  being  heretics. 


\ 

60  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

But  ^^the  text  teaches/'  says  ]\Ir.  Jeter,  "thai  the 
success  of  gosj)el  ministers^  even  the  most  eminent, 
whether  in  the  conversion  of  sinners  or  the  improve- 
ment of  saints,  is  of  divine  influence.''  That  is,  their 
success  depends  on  a  '^supernatural  agency''  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  for  this  is  the  only  conception  he  has  of  divine 
influence.  And,  continues  he,  "the  doctrine  is  accord- 
ing to  analogy."*  "In  the  vegetable  kingdom,"  he 
assures  us,  "God  gives  the  increase;"  and  even  con- 
descends to  acquaint  us  with  the  astounding  fact  that 
"the  most  skilful  husbandman  on  earth  cannot  make  a 
blade  of  grass  grow  without  divine  aid.  It  would  be 
easy  to  show,"  he  further  remarks,  "that  the  same 
princi2)le  pervades  the  animal  kingdom;"  and  then  adds, 
"we  might  reasonably  infer  that  this  principle  extends 
into  the  kingdom  of  grace."  That  Mr.  Jeter  might 
reasonably  infer  it,  we  dare  not  deny;  but  that  a  "Camp- 
bellite"  should  ever  do  so,  is,  we  know,  the  event  least 
likely  to  happen  of  any  other  in  the  three  kingdoms  of 
which  ]\Ir.  Jeter  speaks.  A  "  Campbellite"  would  be 
most  certain  to  limit  his  inferences  to  what  the  Scrip- 
tures do  teach,  either  by  actual  assertion  or  necessary 
implication,  and  all  beyond,  we  feel  assured,  would  be 
left  to  the  speculatist  and  to  Mr.  Jeter. 

But,  in  regard  to  the  expression  "God  gave  the  in- 
crease," we  wish  to  say  distinctly,  we  cordially  believe 
it  teaches  that  God  crowns  the  labors  of  his  servants 
with  success.  What  we  deny  is,  that  it  teaches  that  he 
does  so  in  the  mode  contended  for  by  Mr.  Jeter.  We 


*  "Analogies  prove  nothing." — J.  B.  Jeter,  p.  169:  "  Campbellism 
examined." 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  61 


believe  the  fact  because  the  word  of  God  asserts  it,  and 
all  beyond  the  fact  is  fiction.  Where  the  all-wise  Creator 
has  thought  it  best  to  withhold  an  explanation  of  the 
mode  in  which  he  executes  his  will,  w^e  think  it  safest  to 
venture  none.  But  not  so  Mr.  Jeter :  he  speaks,  as  if  he 
were  the  embodiment  of  light,  where  angeis  need  be  mute. 

SECTION  V. 

Mr.  Jeter's  next  proofs  of  ^Hhe  doctrine  of  a  super- 
natural agency  in  the  conversion  of  sinners"  is  the  follow- 
ing:— '^Seeing  ye  have  purified  your  souls  in  obeying  the 
Truth  through  the  Spirit  unto  unfeigned  love  of  the  brethren  : 
see  that  ye  love  one  another  with  a  pure  heart  fervently." 

It  is  here  distinctly  said  that  the  persons  whom  the 
verse  addresses  had  purified  their  souls  in  obeying  the 
Truth.  Of  course,  then,  Mr.  Jeter  w^ill  admit  that  purifi- 
cation of  the  soul,  at  least,  is  not  dependent  on  the 
peculiar  influence  he  advocates.  Since,  then,  this  in- 
fluence is  not  exerted  in  order  to  purify  the  soul,  in 
order  to  what  else,  if  at  all,  is  it  exerted  ?  In  order  to 
dispose  the  heart  to  receive  and  be  guided  by  the  Truth,  or 
in  order  to  produce  obedience,  is  his  conclusion.  His 
language  is: — ^^An  influence  distinct  from  and  above 
the  Truth  is  indispensable  to  the  production  of  this  obe- 
dience. The  Holy  Spirit  exerts  this  influence  not  in 
revealing  new  truth  or  creating  new  faculties,  but  in 
disposing  the  heart  to  receive  and  be  guided  by  the 
gospel.'' 

But  no  passage  of  Scripture  is  safely  construed,  when  con- 
strued to  mean  more  than  its  terms  will  fairly  import.  Now, 


62  KEYIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

in  the  light  of  this  golden  rule,  the  truth  of  which  is 
intuitively  perceived,  do  we  feel  that  Jeter's  con- 
clusion is  justified  by  the  passage  in  hand?  We  cannot 
feel  so.  But,  he  will  doubtless  urge,  they  obeyed  through 
the  S2)irit,  and  this  implies  the  conclusion.  Does  it, 
indeed?  Even  granting  the  most  that  he  can  ask;  to 
wit,  that  in  construing  the  passage,  the  clause,  through 
the  Spirit,  is  to  be  construed  with  the  word  obeyed,  and 
still  does  the  conclusion  follow ?  Can  the  clause,  "through 
the  Spirit,"  mean  oily,  through  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  dis- 
tinct from  and  above  the  Truth?  If  not,  how  can  Mr. 
Jeter  know  that  another  influence  is  not  meant  ?  AVill 
he  answer  these  questions?  iS'ever,  we  predict.  If  he 
affirms  that  only  an  influence  distinct  from  and  above 
the  Truth  is  meant,  then  we  deny  utterly  that  the  terms 
of  the  clause  fairly  import  the  meaning,  and  demand  other 
and  weightier  testimony  than  his  bare  word  that  he 
affirms  truly.  The  truth  is,  that  in  this,  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding instance,  the  most  that  he  can  claim  for  his  doc- 
trine is,  that  it  is  not  impossible  it  may  be  implied. 
One  brief  sentence  exhausts  his  logic : — it  is  not  impossi- 
ble his  doctrine  may  be  implied,  therefore  it  is  true. 
But  the  question  between  him  and  us  is  not  a  question 
of  mere  possible  implication,  but  a  question  of  fact.  Does 
the  Spirit  in  conversion  exert  on  the  sinner  an  influence  dis- 
tinct from  and  above  the  Truth?  This  is  the  question. 
And  we  require  that  it  be  made  good  not  by  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  which  may  possibly  imply  it,  but  by 
passages  which  either  actually  assert  it  or  necessarily 
imply  it.  This  done,  Mr.  Jeter  has  carried  his  cause: 
this  not  done,  he  has  utterly  failed,  and  left  the  truth 


REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


63 


with  the  adverse  side.  But  this  as  yet  he  has  not 
done ;  neither  will  he  do  it,  unless  -he  produces  other 
stronger  and  more  pertinent  evidence  than  is  contained 
in  the  preceding  passage. 

The  expression  obeyed  through  the  Spirit,  conceding 
this,  which  is  not  admitted,  to  be  the  proper  collocation 
of  the  words,  can  be  shown  safely  to  import  no  more 
than  this : — that  the  Spirit  did,  through  the  apostles 
whom  it  inspired,  present,  to  the  minds  of  those  whom 
they  addressed,  the  Truth,  which  is  ever  able  to  make  wise 
to  salvation,  and  the  sufficient  motives  to  induce  their 
obedience  to  all  commands  of  the  gospel.  This  exposi- 
tion strikes  our  common  sense  as  just  and  natural;  it 
falls  within  a  no  strained  construction  of  the  clause, 
and  accords  with  facts;  and  all  beyond  this  lies  far 
within  a  region  of  vague  conjecture. 


SECTION  VI. 

Mr.  Jeter  closes  what  we  may  term  the  first  part  of 
his  defence  of  his  theory  of  spiritual  influence  with  the 
following  passage  : — "For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will 
make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the 
Lord :  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them 
in  their  hearts :  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall 
he  to  me  a  peopled' 

In  this  passage  the  Lord  declared  by  his  prophet  that 
during  the  reign  of  Christ  he  would  put  his  laws  into  the 
mind  and  ivrite  them  in  the  hearts  of  his  people, — a  declara- 
tion upon  which  Mr.  Jeter  relies  as  sustaining  his  theory. 
Now,  be  it  distinctly  noticed,  that  the  passage  asserts 


64 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPEELLISM  EXAMINED. 


only  a  fact,  leaving  the  mode  of  its  occurrence  wholly 
unexplained.  But  a  passage  which  asserts  only  a  fact 
can  never  be  used  in  proving  modCy  unless  the  mode  to 
be  proved  is  itself  the  fact  asserted.  And  yet  ^Ir  Jeter 
employs  this  passage  to  prove  mode  and  nothing  else. 
He  is  not  attempting  to  prove  the  fact  that  God  puts  his 
laws  into  the  mind  and  writes  them  in  the  hearts  of  his 
people,  but  the  mode  in  which  he  does  it, — the  mode 
being  the  only  thing  in  dispute.  In  a  word,  he  is  at- 
tempting to  prove  that  God  does  this  by  a  process,'^  to 
use  his  own  language,  above  the  power  and  skill  of 
men  or  angels.'^  What,  now,  is  this  ^^process"?  The 
inward  and  effective  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  says 
Mr.  Jeter.  And  then,  in  order  to  prove  this,  he  cites  a 
passage  which,  concerning  ^^process"  or  "the  inward 
and  effective  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  says  nothing, 
and  is  hence  wholly  irrelevant.  True,  all  facts  occur  in 
some  specific  mode ;  but  then  the  mode  in  which  a  fact 
occurs  is  one  thing  and  the  fact  itself  another ;  and  con- 
sequently, unless  when  a  passage  states  a  fact  it  also 
explains  the  mode  of  its  occurrence,  although  it  is  com- 
petent to  establish  the  former,  yet  it  is  of  no  avail  in 
proving  the  latter.  Hence,  it  turns  out  that  Mr.  Jeter's 
present  "proof"  proves  nothing,  unless  it  is  that  his 
theory  is  proofless. 

In  regard  to  the  passage,  one  thing  is  certain  : — its 
language  is  figurative.  What,  then,  is  its  meaning? 
Here  we  must  again  caution  the  reader  against  con- 
struing a  passage  to  mean  more  than  its*  terms  will 
fairly  import.  The  passage,  then,  can  only  mean  that, 
during  the  reign  of  Christ,  God  would  cause  his  jpeople  to 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  05 

understand  his  laws,  and  these  laics  to  be  impressed  on  their 
hearts.  In  order  to  this,  two  things,  and  only  two,  are 
necessary:  —  1st,  that  God  cause  his  laws  to  be  pub- 
lished in  an  intelligible  form;  2d,  that  he  accompany 
this  publication  with  such  sanctions,  such  tokens  of 
paternal  kindness,  and  such  inducements  to  obedience, 
as  to  awaken  fear,  engage  affection,  and  enlist  our  self- 
love.  And  all  this  our  heavenly  Father  has  done.  His 
laws  are  intelligible  to  a  degree  exactly  equaling  our 
accountability;  and  no  terrors  are  equal  to  the  'terrors 
of  the  Lord,"  no  love  equal  to  that  with  which  he  "first 
loved  us,"  and  no  inducements  to  obedience  equal  to 
'^immortality  and  eternal  life." 

From  all  of  which  we  conclude  that  !Mr.  Jeter's  "pro- 
cess above  the  power  and  skill  of  men  or  angels,"  his 
"  inward  and  effective  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  rests 
on  no  foundation  better  than  the  fabulous  traditions  of 
his  church,  or  the  fictions  of  his  own  brain. 

SECTION  YII. 

We  have  now  to  notice  the  second  part  of  Mr.  Jeter's 
defence  of  a  supernatural  agency  in  the  conversion  of  sm<- 
ners," — a  part  which  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by 
the  following  position  of  ]Mr.  Campbell,  to  wit : — That 
the  Holy  Spirit  personally  dwells  in  the  Christian  to  help 
his  infirmities  while  exerting  himself  to  attain  to  eternal  life. 
Mr.  Jeter's  language  is,  "I  go  further,  and  insist  that, 
the  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  sanctifi cation  being  ad- 
mitted, it  follows,  as  a  logical  sequence,  that  the  same 
influence  is  exerted  in  conversion,  which  is  but  the  com- 


66  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

mencement  of  the  work  of  wMch  sanctification  is  the 
progress.'^  This  is  not  a  new  doctrine,  but  the  old, 
argued  on  a  new  ground.  The  influence  of  the  Spirit 
contended  for  is  still  an  influence  distinct  from  and 
above  the  truth,  and  the  mode  of  exerting  it  is  by  imme- 
diate contact  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  the  human.  Mr. 
Jeter's  first  direct  proof,"  under  this  head^  in  defence 
of  his  doctrine,  is  the  following : — 

^^My  first  argument  respects  the  ]power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  is  this : — if  the  Spirit  can  and  does  dwell  in 
believers,  actually  and  powerfully  assisting  them  in  the 
mighty  struggle  for  eternal  life,  then  he  can  exert  a 
similar  influence  in  enlightening,  quickening,  and  re- 
newing the  ungodly.'' 

Not  quite  correct,  we  venture  to  say.  Mr.  Jeter's  first 
argument  is  intended  to  ''respecf  his  position,  and  is 
derived  from  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  his 
"  first  argument"  is  in  reality  no  argument  at  all.  It 
is  merely  an  instance  of  the  fallacy  of  shifting  the  ground 
in  debate.  The  question  between  Mr.  Campbell  and  him 
is  not  a  question  respecting  what  the  Spirit  can  do,  but 
a  question  respecting  what  it  does.  In  regard  to  what 
the  Spirit  can  do,  as  an  abstract  question  or  a  question 
of  power,  Mr.  Campbell  raises  no  question.  We  repeat, 
the  question  is  not  as  to  what  the  Spirit  can  do,  but  as 
to  what  it  actually  does.  And,  since  an  argument  re- 
specting what  the  Spirit  can  do  (which  is  the  argument 
of  Mr.  Jeter)  has  no  tendency  to  establish  a  statement 
respecting  what  it  does,  it  turns  out  that  Mr.  Jeter's 
^'  first  argument"  proves  nothing. 

Speaking  in  regard  to  the  foregoing  position  of  Mr. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


67 


Campbell,  Mr.  Jeter  says,  (p.  161,)  ^'I  do  not,  I  trust, 
misunderstand  Mr.  Campbell  on  this  vital  subject.  He 
teaches  that  all  that  is  done  in  us  before  regeneration. 
— which,  in  the  Bethany  dialect,  means  ^  born  of  water,' 
or  immersion — '  God  our  Father,'  not  the  Holy  Spirit, 
'  effects  by  the  word;'  but  after  our  new  birth,  'the  Holy 
Spirit  is  shed  on  us  richly  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Savior.'"  In  this  extract  occur  two  things,  to  which 
we  request  the  attention  of  the  reader. 

1.  ''Regeneration  means,  in  the  Bethany  dialect,  horn  of 
water,  or  immersion." 

Once  for  all,  we  wish  to  coiTect  this  stale  falsehood, 
which  has  been  repeated  by  every  reviler  of  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, from  Greatrake  down  to  ^Ir.  Jeter.  The  satisfac- 
tion with  which  these  gentlemen  have  dealt  in  this 
barren  tale  seems  to  have  been  real,  heartfelt,  com- 
plete. They  have  had  exquisite  pleasure  in  repeat- 
ing it. 

Eegeneration,  in  the  Bethany  dialect,  is  exactly  equiva- 
lent to  the  new  birth ;  and  the  new  birth,  in  the  Bethany 
dialect,  means  to  he  hegotten  hy  the  Spirit  and  to  he  horn  of 
water,  or  immersed.  But,  because  birth  applies  rather  to 
the  act  of  being  born — the  last  act — than  to  any  act 
preceding  it,  so,  in  the  Bethany  dialect,  regeneration 
applies  rather  to  the  act  of  being  born  of  water — the 
last  act — than  to  any  act  preceding  it.  But,  as  birth, 
though  applying  rather  to  the  last  act  than  to  any  act 
preceding  it,  includes  nevertheless  all  the  other  acts 
*  which  precede  it,  or  the  whole  process  of  generation,  so 
regeneration,  though  in  the  Bethany  dialect  applying 
rather  to  the  last  act — the  act  of  being  born  of  water — 


68 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


than  to  any  act  preceding  it,  includes  also  all  the  other 
acts  ^^I'Gceding  it,  or  the  whole  process  of  being  bom 
again.  In  this  sense  and  in  this  only,  and  for  these 
reasons,  has  ^Ir.  Campbell  ever  employed  the  word 
"regeneration"  as  equivalent  to  being  born  of  water, 
or  immersion.  And  if  in  every  instance  where  he  has 
used  the  word  he  has  not  stopped  to  qualify  it  thus, 
still,  he  has  done  so  so  often  elsewhere  that  no  excuse 
can  be  pleaded  for  repeating  the  preceding  vulgar 
slander,  which  Mr.  Jeter,  With  all  his  simulated  fair- 
ness, is  not  ashamed  to  repeat. 

A  single  extract  from  Mr.  Campbell — an  extract,  too, 
well  known  to  Mr.  Jeter — will  set  this  matter  forever  at 
rest.  ''By  the  hath,  of  regeneration,"  says  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, ''  is  not  meant  the  first,  second,  or  third  act,  but  the 
last  act  of  regeneration,  which  completes  the  whole,  and  is, 
therefore,  used  to  denote  the  new  birth.  This  is  the  reason 
why  our  Lord  and  his  apostles  unite  this  act  with  water. 
Being  born  of  water,  in  the  Savior's  style,  and  the  bath 
of  regeneration,  in  the  apostles'  style,  in  the  judgment  of 
all  writers  and  critics  of  eminence,  refer  to  one  and  the 
same  act, — to  wit :  Christian  baptism."  In  the  light  of 
this  well-weighed  and  cautiously-worded  paragraph,  in 
which  it  is  the  intention  of  Mr.  Campbell  to  define  his 
position,  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  regard  for  truth 
and  morality,  of  the  regard  for  the  rights  and  reputa- 
tion of  others,  of  the  man  who  has  the  front  to  come 
forward  and  say,  Begeneration  means,  in  the  Bethany 
dialect,  born  of  icater,  or  immersion? 

2.  "All  that  is  done  in  us  before  regeneration,  God  our 
Father,  not  the  Holy  Spirit,  effects  by  the  word." 


RETIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  G9 

Mr.  Campbell  not  only  never  penned  this,  but  never 
any  thing  which  implies  it.  This  is  what  he  has  said 
after  it  has  passed  through  the  mind  of  !Mr.  Jeter,  the 
dissimilarity  between  which  and  a  filter  is  striking. 
Fluids  when  passed  through  a  filter  come  out  in  their 
freest  form  from  impurities;  but  truth  passed  through 
the  mind  of  Mr.  Jeter  strangely  comes  out  error.  Had 
the  alchemists  of  old  possessed  such  an  instrument 
acting  in  a  reverse  manner,  long  since  would  all  baser 
metals  have  passed  into  gold. 

Mr.  Campbell  has,  we  grant,  said  that  all  that  is  done 
in  us  before  regeneration,  (by  which  he  means  immer- 
sion in  the  sense  just  explained,)  God  our  Father  effects 
by  the  word;  but  he  has  never  said,  neither  does  his 
language  imply  it,  that  all  that  is  thus  done  in  us,  God 
our  Father,  not  the  Holy  Spirit,  effects  by  the  word. 
Not  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  in  his  thoughts  when  he 
penned  the  sentence.  This  expression  falsifies  his  sen- 
tence ;  but  it  is  a  falsification  for  which  !Mr.  Jeter,  and 
not  Mr.  Campbell,  is  responsible.  True,  God  our  Fa- 
ther is  conceived  of,  in  the  Bethany  dialect,  as  the 
author,  but  the  remote  author,  of  that  of  which  the 
Spirit  is  deemed  the  more  immediate  agent;  namely, 
all  that  is  effected  in  us  before  immersion.  What  God, 
however,  thus  effects,  he  effects  by  the  Spirit;  what  the 
Spirit  thus  effects,  it  effects  by  the  Truth.  This  ap- 
proaches much  nearer  both  to  the  Bethany  thought 
and  the  Bethany  dialect. 


70 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


SECTION  VIII. 

second  proof/'  says  Mr.  Jeter,  '^is  derived  from 
the  nature  of  sanctification.  It  is  progressive  holiness. 
It  is  beautifully  described  by  the  wise  man : — '  The 
path  of  the  just  is  as  the  shining  light,  that  shineth 
more  and  more  unto  the  perfect  day Prov.  iv.  18. 
Eegeneration  is  the  commencement  of  holiness.  Ee- 
generation  and  sanctification  do  not  denote  different 
processes,  but  the  same  process  in  different  stages. 
They  resemble  each  other  as  the  child  resembles  the 
man,  or  the  dawn  resembles  the  day.  .  .  .  Conversion 
is  holiness  begun;  sanctification  is  holiness  progressing: 
but  in  both  cases  the  holiness  is  of  the  same  nature, 
tendency,  and  origin.'' 

1.  Holiness  and  sanctification,  in  almost  every  case 
where  they  occur,  are  represented  by  one  and  the  same 
word  in  the  original;  or,  still  more  to  the  point,  the 
original  word  which  is  rendered  sanctification  is  in- 
differently rendered  either  holiness  or  sanctification. 
Since,  then,  the  same  original  word  means  indifferently 
either  sanctification  or  holiness,  how  can  sanctification 
be  ]3rogressive  holiness"?  This  is  just  the  same  as 
saying  that  sanctification  is  progressive  sanctification, 
which  is  as  ridiculous  as  to  say  a  line  an  inch  long  is  a 
line  an  inch  long  progressing  a  little.  Thus  briefly, 
then,  do  we  dispose  of  a  part,  and  a  chief  part,  of  the 

second  proof,"  which  turns  out  to  be  absurd. 

2.  But  the  main  point  in  the  second  proof,"  if  it 
has  any,  and  its  chief  defect  as  a    proof,"  is  an  assump- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  71 

tion.  It  is  assumed  that  conversion  is  eifected  by  the 
same  influences  by  which  Christian  life  is  admitted  to 
be  in  part  sustained;  and  this  in  part  is  true,  but  it  is 
not  the  part  that  is  true  that  is  assumed.  It  is  assumed 
that  the  immediate  influence  of  the  Spirit,  which  we 
maintain  to  be  necessary  to  sustain  and  perfect  the 
Christian  life,  is  also  necessary  to  conversion.  Xow, 
this  is  precisely  the  thing  which  we  deny,  and  which, 
therefore,  should  not  have  been  assumed  but  proved. 
We  maintain  that  the  Spirit  dwells  in  the  Christian, 
because  the  word  of  God  asserts  it;  and  deny  that  it 
acts  immediately  on  the  sinner,  because  the  word  of  God 
does  not  assert  it,  neither  imj^ly  it ;  and  since  what  we 
deny  does  not  follow  from  what  we  admit,  clearly,  it 
should  not  have  been  assumed  to  follow,  but  proved. 
Admitting  that  the  Spirit  affects  Christians,  in  whom 
it  dwells,  in  a  particular  way,  by  no  means  justifies  the 
inference  that  it  affects  sinners,  in  whom  it  cannot 
dwell,  in  the  same  way.  The  admission  and  the  in- 
ference have  no  such  connection  with  one  another  as 
to  enable  us  to  deduce  the  one  from  the  other.  From 
knowing  that  the  Spirit  acts  on  the  sinner  through  the 
Truth  only,  we  should  never  be  able  to  infer  that  it 
dwells  in  the  Christian,  neither  the  reverse.  Hence, 
the  main  point  in  the  second  proof,''  which  happens 
to  be  an  assumption,  turns  out  to  be  naught. 

SECTION  IX. 

"My  third  proof,"  remarks  Mr.  Jeter,  ^^is  drawn  from 
the  direct  testimony  of  revelation.    The  Scriptures,  I  may 


72 


REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


remark,  in  general  terms,  ascribe  conversion  to  divine 
agency  in  language  as  clear,  strong,  and  varied  as  they 
do  sanctification.  The  Spirit  that  nourishes  is  the 
Spirit  that  begets  :  the  power  that  preserves  is  the 
power  that  creates." 

At  sight  this  position  seems  plausible ;  but,  on  a  little 
closer  inspection,  we  detect  in  it,  unfortunately  for  its 
plausibility,  another  instance  or  two  of  the  fallacy  of 
shifting  the  ground.  The  ground  in  dispute  is  not 
whether  conversion  is  effected  by  divine  or  some  other 
agency.  We  strongly  insist  that  conversion  is  effected 
by  divine  agency.  For  if  the  Spirit  be  divine  so  is  its 
agency;  and  if  the  Truth  be  divine  so  must  be  its  influ- 
ence ;  and  to  these  in  all  cases  do  we  ascribe  conversion. 
But  this  is  not  the  question.  [N'either  is  it  whether  the 
Spirit  that  nourishes  is  the  Sj^irit  that  begets.  There  is 
one  Spirit.  The  question  is,  whether  the  Spirit  which 
is  admitted  to  dwell  in  Christians,  but  not  in  sinners, 
affects  the  latter  in  conversion  in  precisely  the  same 
way  in  which  it  affects  the  former  after  conversion. 
This  is  the  question  at  issue,  which  Mr.  Jeter  under- 
takes to  make  good,  but  the  merits  of  which  he  never 
touches. 

However,  in  confirmation,  we  shall  suppose,  of  the 
real  question  at  issue,  he  subjoins  the  following  pas- 
sage : — ''Being  confident  of  this  very  thing,  that  he  who 
hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you  will  perform  it  until  the 
day  of  Jesus  Christ."  In  regard  to  this  passage  we  shall 
only  say,  if  its  meaning  is  to  be  regarded  as  settled,  (and 
we  believe  it  is,)  it  is  clearly  against  Mr.  Jeter;  but,  if  not, 
then  certainly  it  proves  nothing.    The  ''good  work"  re- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


73 


ferred  to  in  the  passage  was  a  contribution  for  the  spread 
of  the  gospel  which  the  Philippians  were  nobly  engaged 
in  raising,  and  not  "the  work  of  grace  in  the  soul/'  as 
3tlr.  Jeter  asserts,  which  God,  by  some  hidden  influence^ 
had  begun  in  them  at  their  conversion,  and  was  still 
carrying  on. 

Eut,  even  granting  that  by  the  ^^good  work"  is  meant 
their  conversion,  what  then?  The  passage  merely 
asserts  that  God  had  begun  this  work  and  was  still 
carrying  it  on,  but  by  what  influences  it  does  not  say, 
and  hence  does  not  decide.  But,  if  ^Ir.  Jeter  cites  the 
passage  merely  to  prove  that  the  ^^work"  was  of  God, 
— that  is,  that  it  was  begun  and  carried  on  by  him, — 
then  he  cites  the  passage  to  prove  what  we,  at  least, 
have  never  denied. 

In  regard  to  the  other  passage  cited  by  Mr.  Jeter, — 
namely:  ''for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  [Philippians] 
both  to  will  and  to  do,  of  his  good  pleasure,'' — we  have 
to  say,  that  as  it  refers  wholly  to  what  God  was  doing 
in  them  as  Christians,  and  not  to  what  he  had  done  for 
them  as  sinners,  it  has,  therefore,  no  relevancy  what- 
ever to  the  question  in  hand.  Since  then,  from  the 
"direct  testimony  of  revelation,"  Mr.  Jeter  derives  no 
"proof"  in  confirmation  of  his  position,  that  position 
must  be  held  as  resting  on  no  other  than  human  au- 
thority, and  hence  as  false. 

SECTION  X. 

"My  last  remark,"  says  !Mr.  Jeter,  in  closing  his 

^'direct"  proofs,  "concerns  the  honor  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
7 


74  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

The  theory  which  I  am  02:)posing  represents  the  infinite 
Spirit  as  condescending  to  carry  on  and  complete  a 
work  which  was  commenced  and  passed  through  its 
most  difficult  stage  without  his  influence." 

"Whose  theory  it  is  that  represents  the  Spirit  as  con- 
descending merely  to  complete  a  work  which,  without  its 
influence,  has  passed  through  its  most  difficult  stage,  we 
know  not ;  but  of  two  things  we  feel  profoundly  certain : 
— 1st,  that  it  is  not  !Mr.  Campbell's  theory;  2d,  that  to 
effect  conversion  is  not  half  so  difficult  a  work  as  to 
achieve  the  ultimate  safety  of  the  converted.  According 
to  ]Mr.  Campbell's  theory,  conversion  is  in  every  case 
effected  by  the  influence  of  the  Spirit;  but  then  comes 
the  question,  what  influence  is  meant?  He  denies  that 
it  is  an  influence  ^'distinct  from  and  above  the  Truth,'^ 
and  maintains  that  the  Truth  itself  is  that  influence; 
and,  since  ]Mr.  Jeter  has  not  proved  the  thing  which 
he  denies  nor  refuted  the  thing  which  he  maintains, 
we  shall  here  let  the  question  rest. 

When  Mr.  Jeter  asserts  that  conversion  is  a  more 
difficult  work  than  the  Christian  life,  he  establishes  one, 
if  not  more,  of  three  things, — namely:  either  that  he  is 
acting  disingenuously  in  order  to  create  the  imj^ression 
that  there  is  a  necessity  for  his  peculiar  spiritual  influ- 
ence, or  that  he  is  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  character 
of  the  Christian  life,  or  of  that  of  conversion.  We  should 
not  be  surprised  if  all  three  are  true  of  him. 

We  here  close  our  examination  of  Mr.  Jeter's  de- 
fence of  his  proposition  that  ^' there  is  an  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  internal,  mighty,  and  efficacious,  differing  from  moral 
suasion,  hut  ordinarily  exerted  through  the  inspired  word,  in 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  75 

the  conversion  of  sinners''  We  now  submit  the  case  to  the 
reader  with  the  single  remark,  that,  if  competent  to  form ' 
a  judgment,  and  candid,  we  fear  not  his  decision. 

It  is  proj^er  to  state  that  we  have  found  no  little 
difficulty  in  collecting  out  of  some  seventy-five  pages 
of  matter,  whose  predominant  trait  is  a  masterly  con- 
fusion, the  entire  material  part  of  Mr.  Jeter's  defence. 
Still,  we  believe  we  have  succeeded  in  doing  so.  And 
while,  as  we  conjecture,  he  may  deem  these  strictures 
at  times  severe,  yet  in  no  sense  do  we  feel  that  he  can 
think  them  unjust.  To  misrepresent  him  for  the  worse 
would  be  difficult  indeed,  and  to  represent  him  fairly 
is,  with  men  of  thought  and  acquainted  with  the  Bible, 
to  refute  him;  hence,  we  have  no  interest  to  present 
him  in  any  other  than  in  his  own  light. 


7G 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  III. 

INFLUENCE  OF  THE  SPIBIT  IN  CONVERSION — OUB,  OWN  DOCTEINE 
STATED  AND  DEFENDED. 

SECTION  I. 

We  Jiovf  proceed  to  state  our  own  doctrine  respecting 
the  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  conversion,  and  to  present 
a  brief  view  of  the  grounds  on  which  it  rests.  The 
work  upon  which  we  are  now  entering  is  certainly  of  a 
nature  calculated  to  impart  a  far  higher  pleasure  than 
that  in  which  we  have  just  been  engaged.  For,  how- 
ever necessary  it  may  be  to  expose  the  errors  of  an 
opponent,  it  can  never  be  so  pleasing  a  task  as  defend- 
ing our  own  cause,  especially  when  true.  The  thing 
first  in  order,  then,  is  to  state  the  proposition  to  be 
maintained,  to  wit : — 

The  Soly  Spirit  operates  in  conversion  through  the  Truth 
only. 

Before  entering  upon  the  defence  proper  of  this  pro- 
position, we  have  a  number  of  preliminaries  to  submit, 
which,  having  the  effect  to  limit  and  otherwise  qualify 
the  proposition,  will  enable  us  to  enter  upon  the  discus- 
sion of.it  with  a  more  distinct  view  of  what  we  are 
undertaking. 

First,  then,  in  regard  to  the  Spirit  itself,  we  wish  to 
state  distinctly  that  we  conceive  it  to  be  a  Person^  in 
the  sublimest  sense  of  the  word.    We  do  not  conceive 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  77 

it  to  l;e  a  mere  influence  or  impersonal  emanation  from 
the  Father,  or  the  Son,  or  from  both ;  but,  in  the  strict- 
est sense  of  the  term,  a  person.  As  to  its  nature,  it  is 
spirit;  personally,  it  is  the  Spirit;  officially,  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Personally  considered,  these  expressions  may 
be  said  to  exhaust  the  sum  of  human  knowledge  re- 
specting the  Spirit.  Assuming  these  views  to  be  cor- 
rect, no  effort  is  here  made  to  defend  them. 

Second,  the  proposition  to  be  discussed  is  not  a  ques- 
tion of  power.  It  is  not  a  question  as  to  what  the  Spirit 
can  do,  but  a  question  as  to  what  it  does,  l^or  is  it 
even  a  question  as  to  what  the  Spirit  does,  except  in 
conversion.  In  regard  to  what  the  Spirit  can  do,  as  an 
abstract  question,  we  venture  no  speculations.  We 
presume  to  assign  no  limits  to  power  where  we  can 
imagine  none.  AYe  do,  however,  presume  to  think, 
without  here  stopping  to  assign  the  reasons  for  so 
thinking,  that  the  Spirit  does,  in  order  to  effect  the 
conversion  of  the  human  family,  all  it  can  do  according 
to  the  all-wise  plans  of  the  Savior,  and  in  harmony 
with  the  perfect  freedom  of  the  human  will ;  and  that 
it  can,  not  for  physical  but  for  moral  reasons,  do  no 
more. 

And  what  is  here  said  may  be  taken  as  a  reply  to 
much  irrelevant,  if  not  foolish,  talk  in  which  !Mr.  Jeter 
indulges  about  what  the  Spirit  can  do,  and  about  ex- 
pressions of  ]Mr.  Campbell  to  the  effect  that  the  Spirit 
can  operate  only  in  this  way  or  cannot  act  in  that. 
Mr.  Campbell  has  never  presumed  to  pen  a  line  in 
regard  to  the  absolute  power  of  the  Spirit,  or  the 
question,  as  an  abstract  one.  What  can  it  do?  And 


78  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

when  he  makes  remarks  to  the  effect  that  the  Spirit 
cannot  operate  except  thus  and  bo,  it  is  because  ope- 
rating otherwise  is  conceived  to  contravene  some  law 
of  the  human  mind,  or  to  transcend  the  limits  within 
which  salvation  is  to  be  effected^  and  is  hence  inad- 
missible. All  such  remarks  of  ]\Ir.  Campbell  are 
limited;  and  necessarily  so,  either  by  the  nature  of  the 
subject  he  is  speaking  of,  or  the  proposition  he  is  dis- 
cussing. The  slightest  attention  to  a  few  points  like 
this  would  have  saved  ^Ir.  Jeter  much  simulated  anxiety 
occasionally  to  understand  him. 

The  question,  then,  which  we  are  to  discuss,  is  not  a 
question  of  power,  but  a  question  of  fact,  and,  hence, 
is  to  be  decided  not  by  speculation  but  by  testimony,  and 
that  not  human  but  divine. 

Third  :  we  wish  to  distinguish  between  what  may  be 
called  strictly  the  influence  of  conversion,  and  those 
other  influences  which,  though'  purely  incidental  or 
circumstantial  to  it,  yet  in  many  instances  serve  greatly 
to  aid  it,  and  which  we  shall  denominate  providential 
influences.  This  distinction  is  important,  and  we  regret 
that  our  limits  compel  us  to  treat  it  so  briefly. 

Providential  influences  may  be  divided  into  two  great 
classes : — First,  such  as  are  purely  human ;  second, 
such  as  are  either  not  human  or  not  purely  so,  the 
influence  of  the  Truth  being  excepted. 

To  the  first  class  belongs  the  influence  of  the  church 
as  such,  or,  more  properly  speaking,  the  influence  of 
her  members  as  members  of  the  church.  When  the 
members  of  the  church  are  living  in  the  faithful  and 
conscientious  discharge  of  their  duty,  their  influence 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  70 

for  good  is  great.  They  relieve,  for  example,  the  vrants 
of  the  poor,  and  thus  gain  over  them  an  influence, 
gratefully  acknowledged  in  most  cases,  by  which  they 
may  induce  them  to  frequent  the  house  of  God,  where, 
if  they  receive  that  considerate  attention  which,  we 
grieve  to  say,  they  seldom  receive,  their  minds  soon  be- 
come enlightened,  and  their  hearts  impressed,  and  as 
the  result  many  of  them  become  obedient  to  the  Faith. 

Again,  Christians,  mingle  in  the  world,  and  thus  form 
friendships  which  make  them  the  confidants  of  those 
with  whom  they  associate.  This  confidence  may  often 
be  availed  of  to  imj^art  much  useful  information,  to 
correct  many  a  vicious  habit,  and  frequently  to  induce 
even  an  entire  reformation  of  life.  In  these  and  various 
other  ways,  too  numerous  to  mention,  may  the  members 
of  the  church  often  be  of  the  greatest  service  in  in- 
ducing sinners  to  enter  that  circle  within  which  the 
Truth  is  almost  sure  to  take  effect. 

To  the  first  class  also  belongs  the  influence  of  the 
preachers  of  the  gospel,  as  such.  Their  duties  well  per- 
formed can,  in  point  of  effect,  hardly  be  overestimated. 
If  the  Truth  is  distinctly  stated  and  sufiiciently  ampli- 
fied, and  kept  free  from  all  enfeebling  speculations  and 
traditions,  and  urged  home  to  the  heart  with  tenderness 
and  feeling,  its  power  is  just  resistible,  no  more. 

To  the  second  class  may  be  referred  those  sad  reverses 
of  life  which  tend  to  break  the  hardness  of  the  heart, 
and  thu^  prepare  it  for  the  reception  of  the  Truth.  When 
bereft  by  death  of  those  whom  he  loves,  how,  like  a 
wounded  bird,  does  the  sinner  steal  away  into  some 
lone  spot  to  meditate  a  reform  of  life !    How  prepared 


80 


REYIET\    OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


now  for  the  reception  of  the  Truth !  And  even  the 
lighter  and  less  noticeable,  but  still  painful,  incidents  of 
life  often  have  much  the  same  effect.  How,  when  away 
from  the  endearments  of  home  and  with  the  stran over's 
heart,  does  the  sinner  turn  into  the  house  of  God  to  catch 
the  holy  accents  of  Truth,  and  to  muse  on  a  home  where 
the  ties  of  friendship  shall  be  broken  nevermore.  These 
reverses  often  serve,  like  the  frosts  of  winter,  to  mellow 
the  soil  of  the  human  heart,  which  the  Truth  can  pene- 
trate all  the  deeper  for  the  work  they  have  done. 

To  affirm,  as  Mr.  Jeter  does  in  substance,  that  these 
are  all  so  many  means  through  which  the  Holy  Spirit, 
infinite  in  grace  and  power,'^  accomplishes  the  conver- 
sion of  the  sinner,  is  to  affirm  what  he  has  no  evidence 
to  prove.  It  is  to  affirm  what  the  Bible  does  not  teach, 
what  reason  cannot  know,  and  what,  therefore,  the  in- 
telligent Christian  cannot  receive.  Indeed,  in  regard 
to  the  whole  subject  of  providential  influences,  as  well 
as  in  regard  to  the  influence  proper  of  conversion,  3Ir. 
Jeter's  mind  seems  to  be  in  complete  confusion.  Clearly, 
he  does  not  understand  us,  he  does  not  understand  the 
Bible,  and  we  seriously  doubt  whether  he  understands 
himself. 

Fourth:  the  proposition  to  be  discussed  limits  the  dis- 
cussion strictly  to  conversion.  As  to  how,  or  to  what 
extent,  the  Spirit  may  affect  persons  not  in  conver- 
sion, it  says  nothing.  All  it  affirms  is,  that  the  Spirit 
operates  in  conversion.  Again,  such  is  its  structure 
that  it  must  be  considered,  not  simply  as  affirming 
our  own  doctrine,  but  also  as  denying  that  of  our  oppo- 
nents. It  says,  in  conversion  the  Spirit  operates  through 


REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  81 

the  Truth.  This  is  in  fact  all  we  affirm,  and,  hence,  is 
all  we  can  in  fairness  be  called  upon  to  prove.  We  do 
not  affirm  that  the  Spirit  does  not  operate  except  through 
the  Truth,  and  thus  lay  ourselves  under  obligation  to 
prove  a  negative.  We  deny  that  it  operates  except 
through  the  Truth,  and  thus  devolve  on  the  party 
affirming  to  the  contrary,  the  responsibility  of  proving 
it.  This  is  in  reality  the  force,  and  we  desire  it  to  be  so 
understood,  of  the  word  only,  with  which  the  proposition 
ends.  In  our  discussions  hitherto  of  this  subject  we 
have  given  our  enemies  the  advantage  in  the  wording 
of  the  proposition  to  be  discussed.  It  is  now  time  (and 
we  trust  our  brethren  will  not  be  heedless  of  the  hint) 
that  we  should  change  our  policy.  Let  us  assume  the 
ground  which,  in  strict  logical  propriety,  belongs  to  us, 
and  hold  our  enemies  firmly  to  the  position  which  their 
doctrines  assign  to  them.  We  affirm  that  in  conversion 
the  Spirit  operates  through  the  Truth,  and  no  more. 
Our  enemies  affirm  that  it  operates  both  through  the 
Truth  and  without  it.  Let  them  now  make  the  position 
good.    We  deny  it,  and  here  take  our  stand. 

Indeed,  the  very  proposition  which  Mr.  Jeter  under- 
takes to  establish  is,  that  the  Spirit  does  operate  otherwise 
than  through  the  Truth.  Or,  at  least,  this  is  one  of  his 
propositions ;  for,  in  reality,  he  has  two, — one  defining, 
or  rather  attempting  to  define,  but  not  defining,  the  two 
kinds  of  influence  for  which  he  contends;  the  other 
stating  the  two  modes  in  which  these  influences  are 
exerted.  Here,  now,  were  we  confined  to  strictly  logi- 
cal grounds,  we  should  be  compelled  to  close  the  j^yresent 

controversy,  and  demand  judgment  against  the  adverse 

F 


82 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


party.  For  ilr.  Jeter  has  not  proved  the  existence  in 
conversion  of  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  and 
above  the  Truth;  neither  that  in  conversion  the  Spirit 
exerts  any  influence  except  through  the  Truth.  Hence 
the  controversy^  so  far  as  he  is  concerned,  is  here  fairly 
brought  to  a  close,  and  in  our  favor.  Indeed  he  con- 
cedes to  us  the  veiy  ground  we  claim,  and  the  only 
ground  which,  in  this  controv^ersy,  it  is  possible  to  settle : 
namely,  that  the  Spirit  does  operate  through  the  Truth. 
His  language  is: — '^It  is  freely  admitted  that  the  Spirit 
operates  through  the  word  in  the  conversion  and  sancti- 
fication  of  men.^'  What  then  have  we  to  do?  Simply 
nothing.  It  would  be  impossible  to  close  a  controversy 
more  completely  in  favor  of  one  of  the  parties  than  the 
present  controversy  is  here  closed  in  our  favor.  AYe 
shall,  however,  waive  all  technical  advantages  and  p)ro- 
ceed  to  place  the  doctrine  we  advocate  on  its,  own  proper 
foundation.  "We  do  not  ask  that  it  be  received  as  true 
merely  because  conceded  or  because  our  opponent  fails 
to  establish  his  doctrine.  Our  doctrine  has  its  own 
deep,  strong  basis  on  which  it  rests,  to  which,  after  the 
definition  of  a  few  terms,  the  meaning  of  which  it  is 
necessary  clearly  to  state,  we  shall  proceed  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  reader. 


SECTION  II. 

First,  then,  in  what  acceptation  do  we  employ  the 
term  conversion?  Certainly  not  in  one  for  which  we 
shall  plead  the  authority  of  Sacred  Writ,  and  which,  for 
that  reason,  it  is  necessary  we  shall  clearly  itate.  We 


REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  83 


employ  it  then  throughout  this  chapter  to  denote  strictlj 
a  mental  and  therefore  a  moral  change,  and  not  as  includ- 
ing any  outward  act  of  obedience.  In  other  words,  we 
employ  it  as  exactly  equivalent  to  the  expressions  horn 
of  the  Sjpirit,  horn  of  God,  assuming  these  to  be  identical 
in  sense. 

"When  then  the  Spirit  produces  in  the  sinner  that 
change  of  which  in  every  case  it  is  the  immediate 
author,  denoted  by  the  exj^ression  horn  of  the  Spirit, 
through  what  instrumentality  does  it  operate?  We 
respond.  It  operates  through  the  Truth. 

But  what  do  we  mean  when  we  say  the  Spirit  operates 
through  the  Truth  ?  We  mean  that  it  operates  hy  the 
Truth;  that  is,  that  divine  Truth  is  itself  the  vital  power 
by  which  in  all  cases  the  Spirit  effects  conversion;  in 
other  words,  that  the  Spirit  spends  on  the  mind  of 
the'  sinner  in  conversion  no  influence  except  such  as 
resides  in  the  Truth  as  divine,  as  of  the  Spirit.  And  we 
shall  further  add,  that  neither  in  quantity  nor  in  force 
do  we  conceive  that  this  influence  can  be  increased  and 
the  human  will  be  left  free.  We  are  now  prepared  for 
the  defence  of  our  proposition. 

Our  first  argument  is,  that  the  necessity  does  not  exist  for 
any  influence  in  conversion  except  such  as  is  exerted  through 
divine  Truth,  and  that  hence  no  other  is  exerted. 

In  the  present  controversy  this  argument  must  be 
conceived  as  having  great  weight.  I^'othing  is  done  in 
effecting  redemption  for  which  there  does  not  exist  a 
necessity.  And  in  all  cases  in  which,  like  the  present, 
a  peculiar  interposition  is  denied,  the  necessity  for  it 
muet  be  first  clearly  shown,  otherwise  such  denial  stands 


84  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

good  against  it.  Xeither  can  we  assume  the  existence 
of  such  necessity,  unless  we  could  show  one  or  more 
actual  facts  for  which  we  could  not  account  without  it, 
which  in  conversion  cannot  be  shown.  Were  it  either 
proved  or  conceded  that  in  conversion  an  influence  dis- 
tinct from  and  above  the  Truth  is  exerted,  then  certainly 
we  might  infer  a  necessity  for  it;  and  such  necessity 
would  become  a  legitimate  ground  of  argument.  But 
that  such  an  influence  is  exerted  is  neither  proved  nor 
conceded.  Hence  the  existence  of  a  necessity  for  it 
cannot  be  assumed.  j\Ioreover,  where  a  necessity  exists 
for  doing  a  thing,  there  exists  a  reason  for  doing  it;  but 
where  no  such  necessity  exists,  the  presumption  is,  that 
the  thing,  if  done  at  all,  is  done  without  a  reason,  which 
in  the  case  of  conversion  is  not  admissible.  AYe  hence 
conclude  that  in  conversion  no  influence  is  exerted  dis- 
tinct from  and  above  the  Truth. 

And  what  is  here  said  suggests  the  true  theory  of  the 
argument  usually  urged  from  depravity  in  defence  of  an 
influence  above  or  not  in  the  Truth.  It  is  first  assumed 
that  man  is  totally,  or,  as  ^Ir.  Jeter  has  it,  '^utterly,'' 
depraved.  It  is  then  urged  that  this  utter  depravity,  or 
rather  the  resistance  which  is  met  with  from  it  in  con- 
version, cannot  be  overcome  by  any  force  of  divine 
Truth,  however  great,  and  that  there  is  hence  a  ne- 
cessity for  another  and  greater  influence.  But,  instead 
of  assuming  this.,  which  is  the  main  point  in  their  argu- 
ment, let  the  advocates  of  this  peculiar  influence  come 
forward  and  show  us,  either  by  indisputable  and  perti- 
nent facts,  or  by  passages  of  Holy  Writ  clear  and  rele- 
vant, that  man  is  thus  depraved;  then,  and  not  tiU  then, 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  85 


will  their  argument  be  qf  any  force  or  entitled  to  any 
respect. 

SECTrON  III. 

Our  second  argument  is,  that  any  influence  more  intense 
than  that  of  divine  Truth  and  above  it,  such  as  Mr.  Jeter 
contends  for,  would,  of  necessity,  infringe  the  freedom  of  the 
human  will,  and  hence  cannot  he  admitted  to  he  present  in 
conversion. 

In  order  to  be  responsible  man  must  be  left  free.  To 
whatever  extent  we  interfere  with  his  perfect  freedom, 
whether  in  sinning  or  in  obeying,  to  that  extent  precisely 
we  destroy  the  essential  nature  of  his  act  as  a  moral 
agent  and  degrade  him  to  the  level  of  a  mere  machine. 
All  we  can  do  for  him  or  with  him,  as  a  moral  agent,  is 
to  present  the  Truth,  proved  to  be  such,  distinctly  to 
his  mind,  and  then  leave  him  free  as  the  unfettered 
wind  to  accept  it  or  reject  it.  The  instant  we  restrain 
him  by  external  force  or  constrain  him  by  internal 
influence,  that  instant  he  ceases  to  be  a  freeman  and  his 
act  is  not  his  own. 

Now,  there  is  but  one  case  we  need  consider : — that 
of  a  man  unwilling  to  receive  the  Truth.  For,  if  a  man 
is  perfectly  willing  to  receive  the  Truth,  it  is  impossible 
to  conceive  the  advantage  to  him  of  an  influence  de- 
signed to  have  only  the  efl'ect  to  make  him  willing. 
Eut  he  is,  suppose,  no  matter  from  what  cause,  unwilling 
or  disinclined  to  receive  the  Truth.  But  the  Spirit  in- 
terposes with  an  influence  distinct  from  and  above  the 
Truth,  and  inclines  him  to  do  the  thing  which  he  him- 
self is  inclined  not  to  do.  Is  this  the  act  of  a  man 
8 


86  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

acting  of  his  ovrn  will,  or  is  it  not  rather  the  act  of  a 
man  acting  against  his  will?  Certainly,  ^Lr.  Jeter  will 
doubtless  tell  us,  it  is  the  act  of  a  man  acting  of  his 
own  will,  for  the  Spirit  gives  the  man  the  will.  The 
case  then  is  simply  this : — the  man  is  not  compelled  to 
act  against  his  will,  but  compelled  to  accept  a  will 
which  is  not  his  own.  We  shall  leave  the  reader  to 
decide  how  much  this  improves  the  case. 

According  to  this  theory,  which  is  the  theory  of  3Ir. 
Jeter  and  his  brethren,  conversion  is  in  no  sense — not 
even  in  part — in  the  power  of  the  sinner  himself,  but 
depends  absolutely  on  the  power  and  will  of  another. 
IS'ow,  we  request  him  to  acquaint  the  world  whether  the 
sinner,  so  circumstanced,  is  resj)onsible  for  not  being 
converted  until  the  Spirit  exerts  on  him  that  peculiar 
influence  for  which  he  contends;  whether,  in  a  word, 
the  sinner  is  responsible  for  being  what  he  cannot  but 
be, — a  sinner  ?  We  feel  pressed  with  the  necessity  for 
light  on  this  subject,  and  trust  our  reasonable  request 
will  not  go  unheeded. 

But  why,  [Mr.  Jeter  will  doubtless  ask,  leave  the  sin- 
ner so  free,  and  place  the  Christian,  by  the  indwellii^g 
of  the  Spirit  within  him,  under  an  influence  aff'ecting 
the  freedom  of  his  will  ?  AYe  reply,  that  no  such  thing 
is  done.  The  Christian  has  the  will,  but  lacks  the 
power;  hence  the  Spirit  only  helps  his  infirmity  without 
affecting  his  will.  To  aid  the  Christian  to  do  what  he 
is  already  more  than  willing  to  do,  but  lacks  the  power 
to  do,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  constraining  the 
sinner  to  do  against  his  will  what  he  has  the  power  to 
do.    True,  Cod  works  in  the  Christian,  as  we  conceive, 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  87 

both  will  and  deed;  but  then  he  works  the  will  by 
motive, — the  only  thing  that  can  determine  the  will, — 
and  the  deed  by  lending  aid  when  the  power  is  lacking. 

SECTION  IV. 

Our  third  argument  is,  that  the  Spirit  does  not  exert  on 
the  sinner  a  special  influence  to  induce  him  to  receive  the 
Truth  and  obey  it,  when  he  is  perfectly  conscious  he  can  and 
should  do  both  without  that  influence. 

There  are  some  acts  which  a  man  is  as  conscious  he 
has  the  power  to  perform  <as  he  is  of  his  own  existence. 
His  hand,  for  example,  lies  at  rest.  Now,  it  cannot  be 
said  that  he  is  more  conscious  of  his  existence  than  he 
is  of  the  power  to  move  that  hand.  Nor  is  he  simply 
conscious  of  the  power  to  move  it :  he  is  also  conscious 
that  such  and  such  motives  would  induce  him  to  exert 
that  power ;  and  his  consciousness  is  no  less  vivid  in  the 
latter  case  than  in  the  former.  There  is  not  a  sin  he 
commits  which  he  feels  not  the  conscious  ability  to 
refrain  from  committing.  He  may  feel  that  it  is  very 
certain  he  will  not  refrain,  but  still  he  feels  perfectly 
conscious  that  he  can  do  so.  Nor  is  this  less  true  in 
regard  to  duties,  even  the  highest.  A  man  to  whom  the 
proposition  is  presented  and  explaine'd  is  as  conscious 
of,the  ability  to  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God,  as  he  is  of  the  ability  to  move  his  hand  when  it 
lies  at  rest.  It  is  this  very  consciousness  of  the  ability 
to  do  what  yet  perhaps  he  neglects  to  do,  not  because 
he  cannot  do  it,  but  simply  because  he  does  not  resolve 
to  do  it,  that  constitutes  his  negligence  a  crime  and 


88  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

makes  him  feel  guilty  in  tlie  sight  of  God.  Destroy  the 
consciousness  of  this  ability,  and  that  instant  you  take 
away  not  only  his  sense  of  guilt,  but  even  the  guilt 
itself;  for  man  never  yet  sinned  where  he  felt  a  con- 
scious inability  to  refrain  from  sinning.  Whether  man 
is  thus  conscious  or  not  is  not  a  debatable  point.  Within 
himself  he  carries  the  clear  and  certain  proof  that  he 
is  so. 

That  the  Holy  Spirit  should,  by  special  influence, 
induce  men  to  do  what  they  are  conscious  they  both  can 
do  and  ought  to  do  without  such  influence,  is  as  destitute 
of  countenance  from  the  Bible  as  it  is  subversive  of 
every  principle  of  moral  government.  God  aids  men  to 
do  only  what  he  knows  they  cannot  do  without  his 
aid,  and  not  what  they  know  they  can  do  and  are  con- 
scious they  should  do  without  it.  And,  should  it  be 
alleged  that  men  never  become  thus  conscious  without 
a  special  influence,  we  reply  that  then  all  men  have 
been  already  the  subjects  of  it;  for  there  is  not  a  man 
in  Christendom  to  whom  the  gospel  has  ever  been 
preached  who  is  not  thus  conscious.  He  may  pretend 
to  be  infidel  or  atheist  and  consequently  deny  that  such 
is  the  case;  but  he  can  never  silence  the  voice  within 
him  which  asserts  the  contrary. 

Mr.  Jeter's  doctrine  presents  the  sinner  in  a  strange 
jDredicament,  truly.  He  is  perfectly  conscious  he  can 
believe  the  Truth  and  obey  it;  and  yet  it  is  perfectly 
certain  that,  without  an  influence  distinct  from  and 
above  the  Truth,  he  can  do  neither.  He  resembles  a 
man  with  an  amputated  arm,  who  is  j)erfectly  conscious 
he  has  the  power  to  move  an  arm,  and  yet  it  is  perfectly 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  89 


certain  that  unless  by  miracle  he  receives  an  arm  he 
cannot  move  one.  And  so  with  the  sinner;  he  is  per- 
fectly conscious  that  he  can  believe  the  truth  and  obey 
it,  and  it  is  perfectly  certain  that  without  a  pecuHar 
influence  from  the  Spirit  he  can  do  neither. 

But  (may  it  not  be  said  ?)  a  man  is  as  conscious  of  the 
ability  to  live  the  Christian  life,  as  he  is  of  the  ability 
to  believe  the  Truth  and  obey  it;  and  that  hence,  by 
the  preceding  argument,  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  not 
necessary  to  the  Christian.  Eut  this  is  not  true.  In- 
deed, it  is  a  curious  fact  that,  while  men  never  doubt  their 
ability  to  believe  the  Truth  and  obey  it,  they  ever  doubt 
their  ability  to  live  the  Christian  life.  It  is  precisely  in 
regard  to  this  point  that  they  do  doubt  their  ability. 
Kot  only  do  they  distrust  themselves  in  regard  to  the 
Christian  life,  but  they  seem  to  feel  half  conscious  that 
they  are  unequal  to  it;  and  hence,  from  this  very  dis- 
trust, many  long  decline  entering  on  it.  We  conclude, 
then,  instead  of  its  being  true  that  men  are  as  con- 
scious of  the  ability  to  live  the  Christian  life  as  they  are 
to  believe  the  Tmth  and  obey  it,  that  the  very  reverse 
is  true. 

SECTION  V. 

Our  fourth  argument  is,  tliat  the  Savior  and  the  apostles 
always  addressed  their  audiences  as  if  their  conversion  de- 
pended alone  on  the  Truth  they  heard,  which  is  inconsistent 
with  the  hypothesis  that  it  depended  on  the  Truth  and  some- 
thing else. 

Is"ow,  the  case  admits  of  but  two  solutions.  Either 
the  conversion  of  their  audiences  depended  alone  on  the 

8- 


90  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

Truth  which  they  heard^  or  the  Truth  was  inadequat(^ 
to  effect  it.  If  we  accept  the  former  of  these  solutions, 
the  preaching  of  the  Savior  and  the  apostles  is  easily 
accounted  for.  We  then  have  reason  not  simply  in 
what  they  preached,  but  also  for  their  preaching.  At 
once  we  see  a  fitness  and  propriety  in  all  they  said  and 
did,  and  can  account  for  that  inimitable  naturalness  in 
their  speeches,  which  carries  them  so  directly  to  the 
heart.  Their  adaptation  of  the  Truth  to  the  mind  with 
such  exquisite  skill  is  then  easily  explained.  We  then 
see  the  reason  why  their  proclamation  of  the  Truth  was 
attended  with  such  peculiar  and  striking  evidences  of 
reality  and  j^OAver.  All  this  is  easily  understood  if  we 
only  reflect  that  conversion  depends  on  the  Truth.  But, 
if  we  accept  the  latter  of  these  solutions,  certainly  the 
preaching  of  the  Savior  and  the  apostles,  if  not  what 
they  preached,  becomes  a  riddle  of  no  ordinary  intri- 
cacy. They  knew  that  the  Truth  was  inadequate  to 
effect  conversion,  if  such  is  the  case,  and  yet  they 
preached  the  Truth.  They  knew  that  their  audiences, 
without,  in  Mr.  Jeter's  language,  "a  new  and  peculiar 
process,"  could  not  receive  the  Truth;  and  yet  they 
pressed  it  on  them.  They  knew  that  their  audiences 
could  not  receive  the  Truth;  and  yet  they  denounced 
condemnation  against  them  for  rejecting  it.  Shall  this 
be  charged  on  the  Savior  and  the  apostles?  Or  shall 
we  say  that  all  whom  they  addressed  were,  by  this 
"peculiar  process,"  prepared  to  receive  the  Truth? 
Certainly  not;  for  we  know  that  many,  very  many, 
rejected  it.  Or  shall  we  suppose  that  "an  influence 
distinct  froni  and  above  the  Truth"  accompanied  it  to 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  9i 

render  it  efficacious?  Where,  we  ask,  first,  is  the  evi- 
dence, and  where,  second,  the  advantage?  Still,  con 
version  in  many  cases  did  not  ensue.  Or  shall  we  be 
told  that,  although  without  this  influence  none  can 
receive  the  Truth,  still,  with  it  all  are  at  liberty  to  re- 
ject it?  In  the  one  case,  then,  since  the  rejection  of  the 
Truth  is  necessary, — i.e.  results  from  an  inability  to 
receive  it, — the  rejection  is,  of  course,  no  sin.  And  yet 
if  there  is  any  one  thing  taught  in  the  Bible  more  clearly 
than  another,  it  is,  that  the  condemnation  of  those  to 
whom  the  gospel  is  preached  dates  certainly  from  the 
instant  in  which  they  reject  it,  and  for  that  very  reason. 
And,  in  the  other  case,  since  men  are  still  at  liberty  to 
reject  the  Truth,  still  free  to  do  with  it  as  they  will, 
where  is  the  advantage  of  the  influence  ?  With  it  men 
do  no  more  than  what  they  do  without  it. 

Let  any  one  who  is  not  blinded  by  a  false  system  of 
religion  attentively  study  the  speeches  of  the  Savior 
and  the  apostles,  and  nothing  will  strike  him  more 
clearly  than  this : — that  they  delivered  their  speeches 
precisely  as  other  men  do,  assuming  the  ability  of  their 
audiences  to  understand  and  receive  what  they  said, 
without  any  thing  more  than  simply  saying  it,  and 
leaving  them  to  abide  the  consequences  of  rejecting  it. 
This  is  the  view  which  first  and  chiefly  strikes  that 
elemental  common  sense  with  which  all  are  endowed; 
and  it  is  not  until  that  common  sense  has  been  com- 
pletely stultified  by  some  pernicious  theory  of  religion 
that  men  abandon  this  view,  and  blindly  adopt  one 
which  neither  sense  nor  revelation  sanctions. 


92 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


SECTION  VL 

Our  fifth  argument  is,  that  in  no  land  or  age  has  there 
ever  yet  occurred  a  single  case  of  conversion  without  the 
Truth:  a  fact  which  j)roves  that  conversion  is  effected  only 
through  the  Truth. 

The  light  of  the  solar  system  would  seem  to  depend 
not  more  absolutely  on  the  presence  of  the  sun,  than 
does  conversion  on  the  presence  of  the  Truth.  This 
fact  is  of  itself  enough  to  settle  forever  the  truth  of 
our  position.  Indeed,  we  should  find  it  difficult  to 
establish  the  connection  between  cause  and  eifect,  if 
conversion  is  not  here  shown  to  depend  on  the  Truth 
alone.  Where  the  Truth  is,  there  conversion  may 
occur;  but  where  the  Truth  is  not,  there  it  cannot 
occur, — at  least  it  is  very  certain  it  never  does  occur. 

If  an  effect  were  never  known  to  happen  except 
when  a  particular  circumstance  was  present,  yet  did 
happen  in  thousands  of  cases  when  that  circumstance 
was  present,  though  not  in  every  case,  no  one  would 
for  a  moment  hesitate  to  pronounce  that  circum- 
stance the  cause  of  the  effect;  and  the  cases  in 
which  it  did  not  happen  would  be  accounted  for  by 
supposing  the  presence  of  some  disturbing  or  counter- 
vailing influence.  But  what  is  this  but  the  case  of  con- 
version stated?  Conversion  happens,  though  not  in 
the  case  of  all,  where  the  Truth  is;  but  where  it  is 
not,  never;  and  even  where  the  Truth  is,  the  more 
frequent  will  conversions  be — other  things  being  equal — 
the  more  distinctly  the  Truth  is  presented  to  the  mind,^ 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  93 

and  the  freer  it  is  kept  from  impurities  when  trans- 
mitted to  the  heart.  And  the  cases  in  which  conver- 
sion does  not  occur  are  owing  to  no  want  of  power  or 
lack  of  vital  force  in  the  Truth^  but  to  its  not  being 
perceived  or  understood  to  be  the  Truth,  or  to  the 
willful  resistance  offered  to  it.  But  it  is  not  necessary 
to  elaborate  this  argument ;  to  state  it  is  enough.  In- 
deed, the  mere  statement  of  it  would  seem  to  establish 
the  truth  of  the  proposition  now  in  hand  as  conclu- 
sively as  it  is  possible  to  establish  any  proposition, 
unless  we  could  produce  it  in  the  very  words  of  the 
Bible.  We  shall  only  add,  that  the  fact  here  stated 
and  the  conclusion  deduced  from  it  have  stood  for  ages 
the  reproach  of  the  man-invented  system  of  conversion 
advocated  by  Mr.  Jeter  and  his  brethren. 

SECTION  VII. 

Our  sixth  argument  is,  that  the  Apostle  James  ascribes 
conversion  to  the  Truth  and  to  that  alone,  which  forbids  the 
belief  that  it  is  effected  by  the  Truth  and  something  more. 

The  passage  on  which  we  base  this  argument  is  the 
following : — "  Of  his  own  (the  Father's)  will  begat  he  us 
with  the  word  of  Truth.''  The  term  here  translated 
^' begat,"  we  should  state,  is  not  the  term  which  is 
usually  in  the  New  Testament  rendered  begat.  But 
its  meaning  is  equally  as  clear,  and  its  force  and  extent 
of  signification  precisely  the  same,  as  the  usual  term, 
when  the  usual  term  is  employed  to  express  the  agency 
of  the  Spirit  in  conversion.  All,  then,  that  the  term 
^'  born"  denotes,  or  can  denote,  in  the  expression  "  born 


94 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPEELLISM  EXAMINED. 


of  the  Spirit^'  is  here  expressed  by  the  term  "begat." 
Each  term  alike  exhausts  the  subject^  and  each  ahke  is 
complemented  by  the  subject.  One  has  not  a  shade 
of  meaning  which  the  other  has  not.  They  are  synony- 
mous. 

"We  shall  assume,  presuming  that  the  position  will 
not  be  questioned,  that  what  the  passage  ascribes  to 
God  as  its  author  is  ascribed  to  him  as  the  remote 
author,  and  was  in  reality  effected  by  the  Spirit  as 
the  more  immediate  agent.  Hence,  of  course,  we  as- 
sume that  whatever  the  term  "begaf  denotes  was 
effected  by  the  Spirit. 

Whatever,  then,  is  effected  by  the  Spirit  in  conver- 
sion, and  all  that  is  effected  by  it,  is,  in  the  passage, 
comprehended  in  and  expressed  by  the  term  "begat." 
Hence,  whatever  the  influence  was,  in  kind  or  degree, 
by  which  this  effect  was  produced,  is  the  influence,  in 
kind  and  degree,  by  which  conversion  is  effected.  What 
now  was  that  influence  ?  To  this  question  the  clearest 
answer  is  necessary,  and  to  this  question  the  clearest 
answer  is  at  hand.  That  influence  was  "the  word  of 
Truth,"  or  simply  the  Truth.  "  Of  his  own  will  begat  he 
lis  with  the  word  of  Truth."  If  this  passage  does  not 
settle  the  question  now  at  issue,  then  it  would  seem 
that  it  is  never  to  be  settled.  It  is  either  an  untaught 
question,  and,  henc«,  should  not  be  debated,  or  it  is  a 
mere  ground  for  endless  and  fruitless  wrangling,  and, 
hence,  should  be  abandoned.  What,  we  inquire,  is  the 
fact  which  it  is  the  intention  of  the  passage  to  assert  ? 
what,  in  other  words,  is  its  predication  ?  Is  it  this 
"Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us" ?   It  is  not;  and,  although 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  95 

this  is  asserted,  yet  this  is  not  the  whole,  nor  even  the 
chief  feature,  of  the  assertion.  That  feature  is,  Of 
his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  Truth.''  The 
passage  contains  the  answers  to  two  questions  : — 1.  Are 
we  begotten  by  the  Father?  2.  And  if  so,  by  w^hat 
means?  To  the  first  question  the  passage  replies,  AVe 
are  begotten  by  the  Father.  To  the  second  it  replies, 
We  are  begotten  hy  the  Truth. 

Here,  then,  in  the  present  passage,  the  truth  of  our 
proposition  is  asserted,  actually  and  unequivocally  as- 
serted, in  language  as  clear,  strong,  and  pointed,  as 
human  ingenuity  can  invent,  or  human  speech  supply. 
If  its  truth  is  not  asserted, — if,  in  other  words,  it  is 
not  asserted  that  conversion  is  effected  by  the  Truth, — 
what  fonn  of  human  speech,  we  ask,  could  assert  it  ? 
The  reply  is,  none. 

But,  Mr.  Jeter  will  doubtless  say,  I  admit  that  the 
Spirit  ''ordinarily''  effects  conversion  through  the  Truth, 
but  maintain  that  in  doing  so  it  exerts  through  the 
Truth  a  peculiar  vital  influence  not  inherent  in  it, — that 
a.  virtue  which  is  no  part  of  the  Truth  goes  out  of  the 
Spirit  through  the  Truth  into  the  soul,  converting  it. 
In  other  words,  he  will  doubtless  maintain,  that,  as  a 
spark  of  electricity  discharged  from  a  point  passes 
through  the  atmosphere  into  an  attracting  object,  so 
an  essential,  quickening  influence,  being  discharged  from 
the  Spirit,  passes  through  the  Truth  into  the  soul,  con- 
verting it. 

But  where,  we  ask,  in  the  first  place,  is  the  evidence 
that  this  is  true  ?  Soberly,  we  ask,  where  ?  If  Mr.  Jeter's 
prospects  for  eternity  were  staked  upon  making  it  good, 


96  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

with  sadness  we  should  add,  he  is  a  doomed  man.  But 
this  is  precisely  the  point  at  which  the  difference  be- 
tween him  and  us  begins  to  show  itself.  We  maintain — 
i.e.  Islr.  Campbell  and  his  brethren — that  in  the  Truth 
as  such,  that  is,  in  the  Truth  as  divine,  as  of  the  Spirit, 
resides  the  power  by  which  in  all  cases  the  Spirit  effects 
conversion :  a  power  which,  as  we  conceive,  cannot  be 
intensified  and  the  human  will  be  left  free,  and  which, 
for  that  reason,  is  all  the  influence  that  can  be  admitted 
to  be  present  in  conversion.  "We  go  further,  and  main- 
tain that  it  is  as  much  the  laio  of  conversion  that  it 
shall  be  effected  by  the  Truth,  as  it  is  of  reproduction 
that  an  oak  shall  spring  from  an  acorn  and  not  from  a 
miracle;  and,  further,  that  we  are  no  more  at  liberty 
to  suppose  the  Spirit  absent  from  the  work  of  conver- 
sion from  the  fact  that  it  is  the  law  of  conversion 
that  it  shall  result  from  the  Truth  and  not  from  some- 
thing else,  than  we  are  to  suppose  the  Creator  absent 
from  the  work  of  reproduction  from  the  fact  that  it 
is  the  law  of  reproduction  that  an  oak  shall  spring  from 
an  acorn  and  not  from  a  miracle. 

But,  in  the  second  place,  we  inquire,  has  not  the  ex- 
pression ^Hhe  word  of  Truth"  its  own  proper,  individual 
signification  or  value, —  a  value  which  belongs  to  it 
simply  as  the  expression  "the  word  of  Truth," — which 
can  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished,  and  in  which 
the  influence  for  which  Mr.  Jeter  contends  is  not  in- 
cluded ?  Either  it  has,  or  that  influence  is  included 
in  the  expression  as  an  integral  part  of  it,  as  a  part 
of  its  own  individual  signification  simply  as  the  ex- 
pression "the  word  of  Truth."     Isow,  let  Mr.  Jeter 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


97 


choose  his  alternative.  If  he  choose  the  former,  then 
is  he  pledged  to  ahide  the  following  conclusion.  Of  his 
own  will  begat  he  us :  how  ?  By  the  word  of  Truth  ? 
No.  But  by  the  word  of  Truth  and  something  else. 
Hence,  when  the  passage  says,  Of  his  own  will  begat 
he  us  hy  the  word  of  Truth,''  since  the  expression  the  word 
of  Truth  is  not  equivalent  to  the  exj^ression  the  word  of 
Truth  and  something  else,  it  asserts  not  the  whole  truth, 
but  suppresses  at  least  half  of  it,  and  is  hence  false. 
This  is  the  fatal  reef  on  which  Mr.  Jeter's  doctrine 
drifts  him,  and  no  skill  or  cunning  on  his  part  will 
enable  him  to  escape  it.  Or  does  he  accept  the  latter 
alternative,  and  say  that  the  influence  for  which  he 
contends  is  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  expression 
the  word  of  Truth  that  it  belongs  to  it  as  part  of  its  own 
individual  signification? — that,  in  brief,  it  is  part  of,  or 
resides  in,  divine  Truth  as  such  ?  If  so,  then  he  and  wo 
are  agreed,  and  so  the  controversy  is  at  an  end. 


SECTION  VIII. 

Our  seventh  argument  is,  that  the  Apostle  Peter  ascribes 
conversion,  or  being  born  again,  to  the  Truth,  and  to  that 
alone,  as  the  means  by  which  it  had  been  effected;  and  that, 
therefore,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  ascribe  it  even  in  part  to 
another  and  unknown  cause. 

The  passage  on  which  we  rest  the  present  argument  is 

the  following : — Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed, 

hut  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God.''    The  original 

term  here  rendered  "being  born  again"  is  the  term 

which  is  usually,  in  the  Kew  Testament,  rendered  by 
9  G 


98  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

the  words  begat,  begotten,  born, — with  this  difference : 
the  term  is  here  combined  with  a  particle  which  has  the 
force,  in  the  present  case,  of  the  word  again,  or  the 
prefix  re.  The  term,  as  employed  in  the  present  pas- 
sage, expresses  precisely  what  is  meant  by  the  expres- 
sion "born  of  the  Spirit;''  and  the  effect  which  it  denotes 
is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  as  tlie  author  of  it.  Con- 
sequently, we  have  now  to  determine,  not  what  effect 
was  produced,  but  by  what  power  it  was  i)roduced;  not 
what  agent  was  employed,  but  with  what  instrument  it 
wrought.  In  a  word,  the  effect  is  known,  and  we  have 
now  to  seek  the  instrumental  cause  from  which  it  re- 
sulted. And  in  all  such  cases  what  is  the  method  of 
procedure  ?    It  is  briefly  this : — 

We  have  an  effect  A,  which  is  supposed  to  result  from 
two  causes,  B  and  C.  We  first  try  to  produce  the  effect 
with  B,  and  fail.  We  then  try  C,  and  fail.  In  this  case 
the  effect  is  held  to  be  a  joint  result  from  both  B  and  C. 
Or  we  try  to  produce  the  effect  with  B,  and  fail.  Wo 
then  try  C,  and  succeed.  In  this  case  the  effect  is  held 
to  result  from  C  alone,  and  B  is  excluded. 

But,  it  will  no  doubt  be  said,  the  present  is  not  a  ques- 
tion in  experimental  philosophy.  True:  but  what  it 
lacks  of  being  a  question  in  experimental  philosophy  it 
happens  to  have  in  being  decided  by  a  still  less  fallible 
authority;  and,  hence,  the  conclusion  arrived  at  has  all 
the  certainty  of  one  arrived  at  by  actual  experiment. 

The  effect  in  hand  is  denoted  by  the  expression  "being 
horn  again."  Mr.  Jeter  maintains  that  this  effect  re- 
sulted from  the  joint  influence  of  two  causes, — to  wit : 
the  Truth,  and  "an  influence  distinct  from  and  above  the 


REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  C-O 

Truth."  "VVe  deny  that  the  hitter  cause  had  any  hand 
in  producing  the  eifect.  Let,  now,  the  difference  be- 
tween us  be  decided  by  divine  authority.  How,  then, 
was  the  effect  produced?  The  Bible  answers,  ''by  the 
word  of  God/'  Unless,  then,  the  second  cause  consti- 
tutes an  integral  part  of  "the  word  of  God,"  (which  it 
cannot,  since  it  is  "distinct  from  and  above"  it,)  it  was 
excluded  from  any  share  in  producing  the  effect;  hence, 
that  effect  resulted  from  the  first  cause  alone, — the 
Truth;  and,  therefore,  our  proposition  is  true.  Indeed, 
we  now  feel  at  liberty  to  say,  it  is  impossible  to  esta- 
blish the  truth  of  any  j)roposition,  either  by  argument 
or  Holy  Writ,  if  the  present  and  preceding  arguments 
do  not  establish  the  truth  of  ours. 

AYe  are  not  at  all  ignorant,  however,  of  the  impotent 
clamor  which  Mr.  Jeter  and  a  few  bigots  wull  raise 
against  these  conclusions.  This,  they  will  cry  in  the 
ears  of  the  multitude  deep-mired  in  the  "ditch,"  is  the 
^'word-alone  system.''  Many  a  gracious  compliment  will 
be  lavished  upon  the  sectarian  divinity.  Orthodoxy;  and 
her  smiles  will  be  deemed  more  than  a  compensation  for 
all  failures  to  defend  her  cause.  But  we  beg  to  tell 
these  gentlemen  that  this  is  not  the  "word-alone  sys- 
tem." The  "word-alone  system"  conceives  the  Spirit 
to  be  ever  absent  from  the  work  of  conversion;  this 
system  conceives  it  to  be  ever  present :  the  "  word-alone 
system"  conceives  the  Truth  to  be  as  destitute  of  vital 
force  as  the  words  of  an  obsolete  almanac;  this  system 
conceives  the  Truth,  since  of  the  Spirit,  to  teem  with  an 
intense  quickening  power,  but  ever  resident  in  the  Truth 
as  divine:  the  "word-alone  system"  is  false;  this  sys- 


100  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

tern  is  true.  These  are  a  few,  and  but  a  few,  of  the  dis- 
tinctions between  the  word-alone  system"  and  this. 
But,  should  ^Ir.  Jeter  still  clamor.  Yet  is  your  system  a 
word-alone  system,  we  reply.  Then  are  we  the  intrepid 
advocates  of  a  word-alone  system,  and  deny  that  the 
Bible  knows  any  other. 

We  shall  here  take  occasion  to  say,  that  the  word 
"born,''  both  in  the  preceding  passage  and  in  the  one 
which  we  shall  next  cite^  is  not  the  word  which  most 
accurately  expresses  the  sense  of  the  original;  but,  as 
the  difference  is  one  which  does  not  in  the  least  affect 
the  arguments  respectively  based  on  them,  and  as  we 
purpose  adverting  to  the  matter  again  elsewhere,  we 
shall  for  the  present  give  it  no  further  notice. 

SECTION  IX. 

Our  eighth  argument  is,  that  belief  in  Christ  and  being 
born  of  God  are  identical;  and  that,  since  belief  in  Christ 
depends  on  the  Truth  alone,  therefore  being  born  of  God,  or 
conversion,  depends  on  the  Truth  alone. 

The  passage  on  which  we  base  this  argument  is  the 
following: — Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ 
is  born  of  God.''  From  this  passage  it  is  most  clear 
either  that  to  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  and  to  be  born 
of  God  are  identical,  or  that  they  are  so  inseparably  con- 
nected that  we  cannot  produce  the  former  without,  at 
the  same  time  and  by  the  same  means,  producing  the 
latter.  This  point,  being  actually  asserted,  we  do  not 
allow  to  be  debatable.  AYhatever  influences,  then,  will 
produce  belief  in  Christ  will  also  produce  the  effect — if 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


101 


belief  itself  is  not  that  effect — denoted  by  the  expression 
"feorn  of  God.''  Eut  the  meaning  of  this  expression  is 
the  acceptation  in  -which  we  are  now  taking  the  term 
"conversion.'^  "With  the  view,  therefore,  of  ascertain- 
ing on  what  immediate  cause  conversion  depends,  we 
shall  now  proceed  to  ascertain  on  what  immediate  cause 
belief  or  faith  depends. 

The  passage  w^e  shall  first  adduce  is  the  following 
from  the  parable  of  the  sower: — ^'Is'ow,  the  j^arable  is 
this  :  the  seed  is  the  word  of  God.  Those  by  the  Avay- 
side  are  they  that  hear :  then  cometh  the  devil  and 
taketh  away  the  word  out  of  their  hearts,  lest  they 
should  believe  and  be  saved.''  The  word,  then,  or  the 
Truth,  it  seems,  can,  and  actually  does,  enter  the  hearts 
of  the  wayside  men.  And  if  it  can  penetrate  the  hearts 
of  these,  it  will  hardly  be  thought  that  it  lacks  the 
power  to  penetrate  the  hearts  of  any  others.  Eut  Satan 
interposes ;  and  for  what  ?  There  is  a  result  to  be  pre- 
vented: that  result  is  salvation.  Eut,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent this  result,  there  is  another,  antecedent,  specific 
result  to  be  prevented,  which  is  belief.  To  prevent 
belief,  then,  immediately,  and  salvation  remotely,  is  the 
object  for  which  Satan  intei-poses.  And  full  well  does 
he  know  how  to  prevent  a  result  or  an  effect.  He  re- 
moves whatever  the  result  depends  on,  or  the  cause  of 
the  effect,  and  the  work  is  done.  ^N'ow,  what  cause  does 
he  remove  from  the  hearts  of  the  wayside  men  in  order 
to  prevent  belief?  and  he  certainly  removes  the  real 
cause.  Is  it  an  influence  distinct  from  and  above  the 
Truth  P  This  question  ought  to  silence  Mr.  Jeter  for- 
ever. But  no;  this  is  not  the  cause  which  Satan  re- 
9- 


102  REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

moves  from,  the  hearts  of  the  wayside  men.  '^He  taketh 
away  the  word  out  of  their  hearts,  lest  they  should  believe." 
The  word,  then,  or  the  Truth,  is  that  immediate  cause 
on  which  belief  depends ;  hence,  the  word  or  the  Truth 
is  the  immediate  cause  on  which  conversion  depends. 
If  this  is  not  demonstration, — moral,  that  is, — then 
there  is  no  meaning  in  the  term. 

But  we  are  not  quite  done  with  the  wayside  men. 
!Mr.  Jeter  says,  the  influence  for  which  he  contends  is 
exerted  "ordinarily"  through  the  Truth.  Is  it  now  ex- 
erted on  the  wayside  men,  or  is  it  not?  Of  course  it 
must  be  one  or  the  other.  Suppose,  then,  it  is  exerted. 
Still  the  Truth  is  taken  away ;  but,  when  the  Truth  is 
taken  away,  what  becomes  of  the  influence  ?  Does  it 
remain  ?  If  so,  where  is  the  advantage  in  it  ?  for  the 
men  are  still  infidels.  Eut  suppose  it  is  not  exerted. 
Still  there  remains  in  the  word  a  power  fully  adequate 
to  produce  belief  without  it ;  hence,  it  is  not  necessary. 

The  passage  we  shall  next  quote  to  show  on  what  im- 
mediate cause  faith  depends  is  the  following: — "So, 
then,  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  word  of 
God."  This  is  one  of  those  fine  passages  which  no 
sophistry  can  so  pervert  as  quite  to  hide  its  meaning. 
It  is  the  comprehensive  statement  of  an  innumerable 
number  of  cases,  and,  as  a  brief  religious  formula,  serves 
the  admirable  purpose  of  preventing  a  tedious  enumera- 
tion of  all  the  circumstances,  remote  and  near,  on  which 
faith  as  an  ultimate  result  depends.  It  states  a  great 
fact  in  religion;  and,  therefore,  with  great  propriety, 
states  it  with  remarkable  perspicuity.  It  pointedly 
asserts  that  faith  comes  by  hearing,  i.e.  by  hearing  the 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  103 

word  of  God.  And  only  what  it  asserts  it  teaches. 
Indeed,  since  it  asserts  strictly  that  fjiith  comes  by  hear- 
ing the  Truth,  the  implication  is  that  it  comes  in  no 
other  way.  For,  the  instant  we  show  that  faith  results 
from  the  Truth  and  some  other  cause,  say  an  "  influence 
distinct  from  and  above  the  Truth,"  that  instant  we 
cast  a  doubt  over  the  passage.  If,  for  illustration,  it 
was  the  avowed  purpose  of  an  individual  to  whom  the 
causes  were  all  known  to  account  for  a  given  effect,  and  he 
should  say,  This  effect  results  from  such  and  such  a  cause, 
at  the  same  time  suppressing  one  of  them,  what  should 
we  think  of  him  ?  Could  we  conceive  of  him  as  speak- 
ing but  to  deceive?  When  an  apostle  undertakes  to 
assign  the  causes  of  a  result,  does  he  suppress  one  of 
them  ? 

But,  I  grant,  !Mr.  Jeter  will  say,  that  faith  comes  by 
hearing  the  word  of  God,  but  maintain  that  the  Spirit 
must  aid  the  sinner  to  hear — that  is,  to  understand  and 
receive — the  Truth.  But  of  the  truth  of  this  there  is  no 
evidence.  It  is  a  mere  creation  of  the  human  fancy, 
countenanced  neither  by  reason  nor  the  Bible.  It  grew 
out  of  that  inveterate  form  of  depravity  insisted  on  by 
^Lr.  Jeter,  and  which  is  itself  a  dream.  Hence,  the 
dream  became  parent  to  the  fancy,  which  is  the  true 
account  of  both. 

We  conclude,  then,  since  belief  in  Christ  and  being  born 
of  God  are  identical,  and  since  belief  in  Christ  is  shown 
by  the  preceding  premises  to  depend  on  the  Truth 
alone,  that  the  Truth  alone  is  that  on  which  depends 
being  born  of  God,  or  conversion. 


104 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


SECTION  X. 

Our  nintli  argument  is^  that  the  original  of  John  iii.  8 
in  its  most  natural  sense — that  which  it  yields  by  the 
soundest  rules  of  interpretation — teaches  that  being  born 
of  the  Spirit  (or  conversion)  is  effected  by  hearing  or  re- 
ceiving the  Truth. 

The  Tvell-known  rendering  of  this  verse  in  the  com- 
mon version  is,  Tlie  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and 
thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it 
Cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth:  so  is  every  one  that  is  born 
of  the  Spirit." 

In  citing  this  verse  as  the  basis  of  an  argument,  we 
have  three  objects  in  view : — 1st,  to  ascertain,  if  pos- 
sible, its  real  meaning;  2d,  to  show  that  in  ils  real 
meaning  it  teaches  the  great  doctrine  for  which  we  are 
contending;  3d,  to  show  that  the  popular  interpreta- 
tion of  it  is  false. 

In  the  outset  we  shall  assume  that  the  verse  in  the 
original  contains  an  explanation  of  the  long-litigated 
clause,  "  born  of  the  Spirit."  In  doing  so,  we  are  not 
unmindful  of  the  fact  that  a  very  different  view  has 
been  thought  to  be  the  correct  one.  For,  by  very  gene- 
ral consent,  it  has  been  held  that  the  verse  contains 
an  illustration  of  the  mysterious  manner  in  which  the 
Spirit  quickens  the  sinner  into  life.  This  we  conceive 
to  be  the  radical  misconception  which  has  utterly  ob- 
scured the  sense  of  this  fine  passage. 

"Without  one  solitary  verbal  mark  in  the  original  in- 
dicative of  an  illustration,  or  the  slightest  indication  in 


REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  105 

the  verse  itself  or  the  context  that  such  a  thing  was 
either  meant  or  necessary',  has  the  verse  been  assumed 
to  be  illustrative  and  rendered  accordingly.  A  more 
unaccountable  departure  from  some  of  the  best-esta- 
blished laws  of  exegesis  than  its  rendering  in  some 
respects  exhibits/  it  has  not  been  our  lot  to  meet  with. 
And  long  since,  we  doubt  not,  the  present  rendering 
would  have  been  utterly  discarded,  had  it  not,  by  the 
mystery  in  which  it  wraps  the  sense  of  the  verse,  ad- 
ministered to  the  well-known  species  of  fanaticism  on 
spiritual  influence  of  which  3Ir.  Jeter  sighs  to  show 
himself  a  champion.  Xo  man  ever  yet  thoughtfully 
read  the  passage  in  the  English  Bible  and  then  laid  it 
down  feelincr  satisfied  that  he  understood  what  he  had 

o 

been  reading.  This  circumstance  alone  should  long 
since  have  suggested  the  suspicion  that  the  sense  of 
the  original  was  not  fairly  dealt  with. 

And,  believing  this  to  be  the  case,  we  propose  to  re- 
translate the  whole  verse.  In  doing  this  we  expect  to 
discover  an  apt,  germinal  explanation  of  the  expres- 
sion "born  of  the  Spirit."  Of  course,  in  a  statement 
brief  almost  to  obscurity,  we  expect  to  find  nothing 
elaborated  but  much  suggested.  We  exj^ect  to  find  the 
subject^  explained,  touched  rather  by  those  single  rays 
of  light  with  which  the  Savior  pencilled  so  matchlessly, 
than  illumined  by  the  whole  splendor  of  his  eloquence. 
We  expect  to  meet  rather  those  hints  which,  cautiously 
traced  out,  lead  to  the  truth,  than  to  meet,  at  first  sight, 
the  truth  itself  Still,  we  expect  to  find  something  de- 
terminate, something  appreciable. 

We  propose  submitting,  as  we  proceed,  first,  a  trans- 


106  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


lation  of  each  single  word  of  most  of  the  vei^se  :  we 
shall  then  briefly  append  the  reasons  for  the  render- 
ing, and,  occasionally,  shall  distribute  these  words  into 
appropriate  groups  for  the  sake  of  indicating  more 
clearly  their  collective  sense. 

First,  then,  in  regard  to  the  word  which,  in  the  com- 
mon version,  is  rendered  "wind.''  This  word  occurs  in 
the  Greek  Xew  Testament  three  hundred  and  eighty- 
six  times.  In  three  hundred  and  eighty-four  of  these 
it  is  rendered  into  English  either  by  the  term  ^'spirit" 
or  by  its  inelegant  equivalent  ghost.''  Once,  in  the 
book  of  Eevelation,  it  is  rendered  ^4ife,''  where,  with 
equal  propriety  and  more  consistency,  it  might  have 
been  rendered  "  a  spirit."  But  not  in  a  single  case  in 
the  Xew  Testament,  except  in  the  verse  in  hand,  is  it 
rendered  "icind."  Xow,  in  translating,  one  great  rule 
to  be  observed  is  this : — to  translate  the  same  original 
word  uniformly  by  the  same  equivalent  English  word, 
unless  the  sense  forbids  it.  Xo  translation  is  deemed 
good  which  violates  this  rule,  none  very  faulty  which 
does  not.  Kow,  since  the  word  in  hand,  out  of  three 
hundred  and  eighty-six  instances,  is,  in  three  hundred 
and  eighty-four  of  them,  uniformly  rendered  into  Eng- 
lish either  by  the  term  spirit"  or  by  a  term. having 
precisely  the  same  meaning,  the  presumption  in  favor 
of  a  similar  rendering  in  the  two  remaining  instances 
is  as  three  hundred  and  eighty-four  to  two.  And  when 
it  is  remembered  that  the  sense  interposes  no  obstacle 
to  such  a  rendering,  this  presumption  becomes  an  im- 
perious necessity.    Eor  these  reasons,  therefore,  we  do 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  107 

not  hesitate  to  render  the  word  in  hand  "  spirit,"  mean- 
ing, thereby,  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Should  the  case  be  thought  to  require  it,  we  may 
add,  that  this  rendering  has  been  suggested,  if  it  is  not 
still  sanctioned,  by  names  which  stand  justly  high  in 
learning  and  sacred  criticism.  Its  claims,  however, 
upon  public  confidence  must  rest  ultimately  on  its  own 
merits. 

Next,  respecting  the  word  translated  "  bloiceth." 
This  word  is  found  in  the  Greek  Xew  Testament  but 
seven  times ;  in  six  of  which  it  is  used  to  exjDress  the 
acts  of  things,  and  only  in  the  remaining  instance  (the 
present)  the  act  of  a  person.  But,  in  almost  every  case 
where  expressive  of  the  act  of  a  person,  it  is  to  be  ren- 
dered into  English  simply  by  the  word  "bj^eathe."  And 
this  is  so  obviously  the  word  by  which  it  is  to  be  ren- 
dered in  the  present  instance,  that  we  shall  attempt  no 
defence  of  the  renderiug. 

But  in  what  acceptation  are  we  to  take  the  word 
^'breathe"  ? — a  literal  or  a  figurative  ?  To  answer  this 
question  at  once,  we  inquire.  Does  that  essential,  sub- 
tle person,  whom  we  denominate  the  Sj^irit,  perform 
the  act  we  call  breathing?  Can  we  predicate  of  it  such 
an  act  in  any  intelligible  sense, — especially  in  the  sense 
in  which  we  say  of  a  man,  he  breathes  ?  Certainly  not. 
To  do  so  would  be  to  assert  what  we  believe  the  very 
nature  of  the  case  forbids;  for  it  does  not  consist  with 
our  notion  of  spirits  that  they  breathe.  They  may 
cause  breathing,  as  the  human  spirit;  but  they  them- 
selves breathe  not.  Hence,  since  the  act  itself— breath- 
ing— is  not  conceivable,  we  are  not  permitted  to  con- 


108  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

Btrue  the  term  as  meaning  it.  We  decide,  therefore,  to 
construe  the  term  figuratively,  and  this  the  nature  of 
the  case  requires. 

But  what  does  the  term  "breath'^  signify?  what 
does  it  express?  We  reply,  it  certainly  expresses  ac- 
tion, but  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  indicate  the  precise 
kind  of  act  performed.  This  we  learn,  as  we  shall  pre- 
sently see,  and  with  much  certainty,  from  the  attendant 
circumstances. 

The  expression  "where  it  listeth'^  may  be  slightly  im- 
proved thus : — where  it  sees  fit.  So  far,  then,  the  verse 
reads  thus: — The  Spirit  breathes  where  it  sees  fit. 

In  the  remark  next  succeeding, — to  wit :  "and  thou 
hearest  the  sound  thereof," — ^we  have  the  clue  to  the  par- 
ticular act  expressed  by  the  word  "breath,'^  which,  of 
itself,  is  indefinite.  But,  in  order  to  trace  out  this  clue 
and  show  to  w^hat  it  leads,  we  must  examine  strictly  the 
meaning  of  the  word  rendered  ^' sound."  This  word  is 
met  with  in  the  Greek  New  Testament  one  hundred  and 
forty-one  times ;  in  one  hundred  and  thirty-one  of  which 
it  is  rendered  "voice;"  in  eight,  including  the  present 
case,  "sound;"  in  one,  "noise;"  and  in  one  case  is  joined 
with  a  verb,  and  rendered  "  noised."  Generically,  the  term 
expresses  sound  simply;  specifically,  a  particular  kind  of 
sound.  Hence,  before  we  can,  in  a  given  case,  correctly 
render  it  into  English,  we  must  know  what  particular 
kind  of  sound  is  meant,  or  from  what  subject  it  proceeds. 
In  the  case  in  hand  it  was  clearly  the  force,  and  nothing 
else,  of  the  preceding  substantive,  wind,  which  deter- 
mined it  to  be  rendered  sound.  But  since  the  original 
of  wind  does  not  mean  wind,  but  Spirit,  the  presumption 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  109 

is  that  the  original  of  sound  does  not  mean  sound,  but 
something  else. 

Now,  in  every  other  case  in  the  New  Testament  (a 
few  doubtful  ones  perhaps  to  be  excepted)  where  it  de- 
notes sound  proceeding  from  a  person,  without  distinc- 
tion as  to  whom,  that  sound  is  the  voice  of  such  person 
heard  in  the  act  of  speaking.  Hence,  since  in  the  pre- 
sent case  the  term  denotes  sound  proceeding  fi'om  the 
Spirit,  a  person,  that  sound  is,  if  there  be  any  value  in 
induction,  determined  to  be  the  voice  of  the  Spirit  heard 
in  the  act  of  speaking.  "We  therefore  decide  that  voice 
is  the  true  rendering.  But  this  voice  is  what  is  heard 
m  the  act,  breathing;  hence,  breathing  and  speaking 
must  be  only  two  different  names  for  the  same  act,  with 
this  distinction, — that  breathing  is  figurative,  speaking 
literal. 

So  far,  then,  the  verse  reads  as  follows : — The  Sfirit 
breathes  where  it  sees  fit,  and  you  hear  its  voice;  the  mean- 
ing of  which  is,  the  Spirit  speaks  where  it  sees  fit,  and 
you  hear  its  voice,  or  what  it  says. 

But  arc  we  borne  out  by  facts  elsewhere  to  be  col- 
lected in  asserting  of  the  Spirit  that  it  spe'aks?  Wo 
certainly  are.  The  Savior  says,  "When  he,  the  Spirit 
of  truth,  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth ;  for 
he  shall  not  speak  of  himself,  but  whatsoever  he  shall 
hear,  that  shall  he  speak."  The  foregoing  conclusion, 
then,  though  fully  justified  by  the  verse  itself,  is  thus 
corroborated  by  facts. 

But  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  an  unembodied  form,  never 
uttered  a  monosyllable  in  a  human  ear  or  communicated 
a  thought  to  a  human  being.    Only  when  in  man  does 

10 


110 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


it  speak  to  him.  As  the  Word  became  incarnate  to 
save,  so  the  Spirit  becomes  embodied  to  enlighten.  Eut 
when  in  man,  it  then  speaks  by  him  to  him  for  him. 
But  it  has  thus  spoken  only  through  the  prophets  and 
apostles.  Hence,  what  we  hear  from  the  Spirit,  and  all 
we  hear,  is  what  it  has  spoken  by  them.  Consequently, 
in  construing  the  word  speak,  in  the  clause  the  Spirit 
speaks,  we  are  not  to  limit  it  to  the  7nere  act  of  speaking, 
but  to  construe  it  largely  as  embracing  all  the  prophets 
and  apostles  have  said,  or  the  entire  word  of  God.  Thus, 
likewise,  are  we  to  construe  the  word  hear  in  the  expres- 
sion '^you  hear  its  voice.'' 

Since,  then,  the  Spirit  speaks,  what  does  it  speak  ?  The 
response  is.  The  Truth.  Hence  it  is  called  ''the  Spirit 
of  truth."  But  truth  is  distributed  into  truth  proper, 
and  facts ;  and  facts  again  into  facts  past  or  history, 
facts  present,  and  facts  future  or  prophecy.  Hence, 
truth  proper,  and  facts  past,  present,  and  future,  as  far 
as  they  involve  the  question  of  human  salvation,  consti- 
tute the  grand  themes  on  which  the  Spirit  speaks  to 
man.  But  it  was  not  enough  that  the  Spirit  should 
speak:  all  it  says  must  be  authenticated.  Hence  its 
truths  are  confirmed  by  its  facts ;  its  facts  again  by  the 
most  complex  yet  simple,  strange  yet  natural,  compact 
yet  extended,  body  of  testimony  known  to  or  to  be  con- 
ceived by  the  human  mind.  It  is  what  the  Spirit  has 
thus  spoken  and  authenticated  that  man  hears;  and 
what  he  thus  hears  that  enlightens  him ;  and  what  thus 
enlightens  him  that  he  believes ;  and  what  he  believes 
that  melts  him  into  pity,  insjjires  him  with  hope,  or 
moves  him  to  a<ition,  as  the  case  may  be.    There  is  no 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


Ill 


rescinding  this  law  of  nature  or  modifying  this  order  of 
things. 

JS^ext,  concerning  the  clause  "but  thou  canst  not  tell 
whonce  it  cometh  and  whither  it  goeth/'  which  we  shall 
alter  but  slightly,  thus : — but  you  know  not  whence  it  comes 
and  whither  it  goes,  which  is  a  literal  rendering  of  the 
original.  This  clause  has  been  for  ages  past,  and  still 
is,  the  glory  and  the  shame  of  the  blind  guide, — at  once 
his  subterfuge,  his  decisive  argument,  his  joy,  and  his 
puzzle.  Who,  when  the  mystic  doctor  has  been  pressed 
on  his  favorite  myth, — spiritual  influence, — has  not  seen 
him  close  the  argument  with  a  triumphant  air,  thus? — 
"Ah,  but  thou  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  and 
whither  it  goeth.^'  Even  Mr.  Jeter,  like  "the  silent 
owl  on  stealthy  wing,"  floats  into  the  gloom  of  the  pas- 
sage and  there  disappears.  He  merely  quotes  it,  with 
no  attempt  to  explain  it,  leaving  us  in  charity  to  hope 
he  may  know  something  about  it,  but  with  many  a 
suspicion  that  he  knows  nothing. 

The  clause  occurs,  slightly  varied,  three  times,  and 
but  three,  in  the  Xew  Testament, — twice  in  the  following 
extract: — "Jesus  answered  and  said  to  them.  Though  I 
bear  record  of  myself,  yet  my  record  is  true ;  for  I  know 
whence  I  came  and  whither  I  go;  but  ye  cannot  tell  whence 
I  came  and  whither  I  go."  It  is  in  the  form  here  last 
occurring,  with  a  slight  variation,  that  the  expression 
is  applied  to  Xicodemus.  The  Savior,  in  the  extract, 
applies  it  first  to  himself  to  express  something  which  he 
alone  knew: — "I  know  whence  I  came  and  whither  I 
go.''    He  then  applies  it  adversatively  to  the  audience 


112  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


to  indicate  that  what  he  knew  they  did  not  know : — 
^'but  ye  cannot  tell  whence  I  came  and  whither  I  go.'* 
'Now,  the  form  of  the  expression  applied  to  the  audience^ 
and  that  applied  to  Nicodemus,  mean  precisely  the  same 
thing,  with  this  difference  : — the  Savior  applied  it  to  the 
Jews  to  express  something  which  they  did  not  know  of 
him,  but  which  they  should  have  known ;  to  Xicodemus 
I  he  applied  it  to  express  something  which  he  did  not 

know  of  the  Spirit,  and  which  at  that  time  perhaps  he 
could  not  know.  But  what  was  the  thing  which  Xico- 
demus  did  not  know?  "We  reply,  precisely  what  the 
clause  says  he  did  not  know.  But  what  was  this  ? 
Simply,  "whence  it  (the  Spirit)  comes  and  whither  it  goes." 
The  whence  and  the  whither,  then,  of  the  Spirit  was  all. 
But  this  is  not  the  popular  belief  The  popular  belief 
is,  that  the  thing  which  Nicodemus  did  not  know  was, 
how  the  Spirit  operates  in  regeneration.  But  the  clause 
says  nothing  about  how  the  Spirit  operates  in  regenera- 
tion; not  even  whether  it  operates  at  all  or  not;  posi- 
tively nothing  about  its  exerting  any  supposed  secret 
influence  therein.  Hence  these  are  not  the  things  of 
which  the  clause  says  Mcodemus  was  ignorant.  The 
whence  and  the  whither  of  the  Spirit,  and  no  more,  is 
what  he  did  not  know. 

But,  because  Nicodemus  did  nol  then  know  the 
whence  and  the  whither  of  the  Spirit,  does  it  follow 
that  we  are  now  ignorant  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
Spirit  operates  in  conversion  ?  Such  conclusion  has  no 
dependence  on  such  premise,  and  hence  of  course  cannot 
follow  from  it.  The  fact  that  Kicodemus  was  ignorant 
of  one  thing  is  no  reason  why  we  should  be  supposed 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


113 


ignorant  of  a  very  different  tiling.  Yet  this  is  the  popu- 
lar mode  of  reasoning  from  the  clause. 

That  what  the  clause  means  may  be  the  better  un- 
derstood, let  us  somewhat  expand  the  whole  passage  to 
which  it  belongs  by  supposing  the  following  train  of 
thought  to  be  passing  through  the  mind  of  the  Savior. 
The  Spirit,  Nicodemus,  speaks  to  men  where  it  sees  they 
will  heed  its  teachings;  and  you  hear  its  instructions, 
which  you  must  receive  in  order  to  be  enlightened  by 
it ;  but  of  the  Spirit  itself  in  other  respects  you  are.  igno- 
rant. You  know  not  whence  it  comes  and  whither  it 
goes.  I  have  told  you  what  it  does,  which  you  may 
understand;  but  of  the  Spirit  itself  you  must  remain  in 
other  respects  ignorant  until  I  am  glorified.  Then  it 
will  be  given;  when  you  will  have  no  difficulty  in  un- 
derstanding what  it  is  not  proper  I  should  at  present 
make  known  to  you. 

The  popular  interpretation  of  this  clause  is  worthy  of 
notice.  It  is  this : — You,  the  human  family,  cannot  com- 
prehend how  the  Spirit  exerts  its  mysterious  influences 
on  the  human  heart  in  regeneration.  It  is  as  incom- 
prehensible to  you  as  the  operations  of  the  wind.  But 
all  the  Savior  says  is  this: — "AYhence  it  (the  Spirit) 
comes  and  whither  it  goes,  you,  Nicodemus,  know  not.'' 
How  singularly  does  the  speculation  contrast  with  the 
truth  ! 

Finally,  we  come  to  the  concluding  clause  of  the 
verse: — '*so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit." 
And  first  in  regard  to  the  particle  rendered  "so."  The 
primary  and  usual  meaning  of  this  particle  is  this 
way.^'    It  occurs  in  the  Greek  New  Tf^stament  upwards 

10*  H 


114:  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

of  two  hundred  times,  and  is  generally  rendered  so,  in 
the  sense  of  in  this  way.  ^ow,  a  chief  rule  in  translat- 
ing is  this : — to  render  a  term  invariably  by  its  primary 
and  usual  meaning  where  they  agree,  unless  the  sense  posi- 
tively forbids  it.  In  the  present  instance,  therefore,  since 
the  sense  does  not  forbid  it,  we  are  compelled  to  abide 
by  the  rule,  and  hence  to  render  the  particle  in  this 
way.  But  in  rendering  it  thus,  the  clause  to  which  it 
belongs  becomes  elliptical,  as  ma}^  be  perceived  thus  : — • 
In  this  way  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit. 
The  sense  is  here  clearly  incomplete,  hence  we  invo- 
luntarily ask,  how^  In  order  to  complete  the  sense 
we  must  supply  the  ellipsis.  But  here  we  come  in 
contact  with  another  rule,  which  says.  Avoid  an  ellip- 
sis where  the  sense  can  be  as  well  expressed  without  it. 
Here,  then,  by  the  force  of  one  rule,  we  come  in  conflict 
with  another;  and,  as  both  cannot  stand,  the  question 
arises.  Which  must  yield?  In  all  such  cases  the  rule 
which  respects  expressing  the  sense  is  held  to  yield  to 
the  one  which  respects  determining  the  sense,  the  lat- 
ter being  necessary,  the  former  merely  discretionary. 
Hence  we  must  abide  by  the  rule  which  requires  us  to 
render  the  particle  in  this  way,  and  sui^ply  the  ellipsis. 
But  in  supplying  an  ellipsis  we  are  not  to  act  arbi- 
trarily. Indeed,  we  are  no  more  at  liberty  to  act  arbi- 
trarily in  supplying  an  ellipsis  than  we  are  in  creating 
one.  The  omitted  word  must  be  such  as  occurs  to  the 
mind  readily,  and,  when  supplied,  such  as  satisfies  it  by 
completing  the  sense  in  an  easy,  natural  way. 

In  the  present  instance  we  supply  the  ellip-jis  thus : — 
In  this  way  is  (born)  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  115 

Instantly  the  mind  seems  to  aecejjt  this  as  correct.  1* 
gives  completeness  to  the  sense,  and  leaves  us  asking  no 
questions.  It  imparts  to  us  a  feeling  of  satisfaction 
such  only  as  we  feel  when  the  truth  flashes  full  on  the 
mind.    We  conclude,  then,  that  it  is  correct. 

Substituting,  then,  the  word  begotten,  which  is  required 
by  the  sense,  for  the  word  horn,  the  reasons  for  which 
we  shall  assign  elsewhere,  and  the  whole  verse  reads 
thus: — The  Spirit  breathes  where  it  sees  fit,  and  you  hear 
its  voice,  but  you  know  not  whence  it  comes  and  whither  it 
goes:  in  this  way  is  (begotten)  every  one  that  is  begotten  by 
the  Spirit.  How  then  is  a  person  begotten  by  the  Spirit  ? 
JBy  hearing  what  it  says  or  being  enlightened  by  its  Truth. 
"Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  Truth." 
"Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incor- 
ruptible, by  the  word  of  God."  Is  not  the  conclusion 
overwhelming? 

With  a  few  additional  remarks  we  shall  dismiss  the 
passage.  The  clause,  "you  know  not  whence  it  comes 
and  whither  it  goes,"  is  to  be  limited  to  Xicodemus,  or 
rather  to  the  time  preceding  the  descent  of  the  Spirit 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  For,  since  then,  in  no  sense 
can  it  be  said  of  Christians  that  they  know  not  whence 
the  Spirit  comes  and  whither  it  goes.  We  possess  infor- 
mation respecting  it  which  Mcodemus  did  not  possess, 
which  enabled  the  Savior  to  say  of  him  what  cannot  be 
truly  said  of  us. 

In  the  outset  of  the  present  argument,  we  assumed 
that  the  verse  in  hand  contains  an  explanation  of  the 
expression  "born  of  the  Spirit."  In  further  confirmation 
of  this,  if  further  confirmation  can  be  thought  necessary. 


.116  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


^ye  once  more  request  attention  to  the  closing  expres- 
sion of  the  verse.  This  expression  does  not  contain  a 
reference  to  the  new  birth  generally,  but  only  to  so 
much  of  it  as  consists  in  being  begotten  by  the  Spirit. 
Hence  it  does  not  say,  in  this  way  is  every  one  born  that 
is  bom  again;  but,  in  this  way  is  every  one  begotten  that 
is  begotten  by  the  Spirit.  Being  begotten  by  the  Sj^irit, 
then,  is  strictly  what  it  explains.  It  states  the  mode  in 
which  this  is  done, — to  wit,  by  hearing  or  believing  what 
the  Spirit  says.  And  how  easily  and  naturally  does  the 
whole  verse  develop  itself  into  this  conclusion!  Each 
step  in  the  investigation  rests  on  the  firmest  basis; 
every  position  is  determined  by  some  simple  and  obvious 
rule  in  sacred  criticism;  and  the  conclusion  accords 
strictly  with  the  other  conclusions  already  arrived  at 
in  this  cha2:)tcr  from  other  portions  of  Iloly  Writ. 


SECTION  XI. 

Our  tenth  argument  is,  that  conviction  of  the  sinner, 
which  is  peculiarly  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  and  which  may 
be  considered  as  but  another  name  for  conversion  in  the  view 
we  are  now  taking  of  it,  can  be  effected  in  7io  way  knovm 
to  the  human  mind  except  by  tlie  Truth. 

As  a  partial  basis  for  this  argument  we  cite  the  follow- 
ing scriptures: — ''iN'evertheless,  I  tell  you  the  truth,  it 
is  ex]^)edient  for  you  that  I  go  away:  for  if  I  go  not 
away  the  Comforter  will  not  come  to  you:  but  if  I 
depart  I  will  send  him  to  you.  And  ichcn  he  is  come  he 
will  reprove  {convince,  it  should  have  been)  the  world  of  sin, 
and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment."    Again,  <'Jf  yo 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  117 

love  me,  keep  my  commandments.  And  I  will  prav  the 
Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter,  that 
he  may  abide  with  you  forever,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
whom  the  world  cannot  receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not, 
neither  knoweth  him.'^ 

From  these  scriptures  it  is  clear,  first,  that  to  con- 
vince the  world  is  the  peculiar  work  of  the  Spirit.  From 
this  work,  w^e  may  add,  it  has  never  been  absent  a 
moment  from  the  day  on  which  it  descended  to  com- 
mence it,  the  day  of  Pentecost,  to  the  present.  Indeed, 
conviction  seems  to  be  as  peculiarly  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  as  expiation  was  of  the  Son;  nor  can  we  any 
more  conceive  of  the  Spirit  as  now  absent  from  its  work 
than  of  the  Son  as  absent  when  he  accomplished  his. 
And  further,  as  the  Son,  though  the  author  of  redemp- 
tion, effects  it  through  agents  and  other  means  appointed 
by  him  thereto, — the  way  which  to  him  seems  best, — so 
the  Spirit,  though  the  author  of  conviction,  effects  it, 
not  as  many  ill-taught  and  superstitious  people  suppose, 
by  an  immediate  contact  of  Spirit  with  spirit,  but 
through  the  Truth, — the  waj*  which  to  it  seems  best. 

There  are  some  curious  illustrations  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  of  the  fact  that  conviction  is  the  especial  work 
of  the  Spirit,  and  also  of  that  singular  sentence,  the 
Spirit  breathes  where  H  sees  fit.  We  cite  the  following : — > 
"  Then  the  Spirit  said  to  Philip,  Go  near,  and  join  thy- 
self to  this  chariot.'^  Again,  "The  Holy  Spirit  said, 
Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  whereunto 
I  have  called  them."  And  again,  "Kow,  when  they  had 
gone  through  Phrygia,  and  the  region  of  Galatia,  and 
were  forbidden  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  preach  the  word  in  Asia, 


118  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


after  they  were  come  to  Mysia  they  essayed  to  go 
into  Bithynia:  but  the  Spirit  suffered  them  not." 

From  these  extracts  it  seems  evident, — 1st,  that,  in 
canying  on  the  work  of  conviction,  the  Spirit  wrought 
only  through  the  apostles  and  other  ministers  of  the 
"Word  whom  it  inspired;  2d,  that,  if  it  had  not  the  entire 
control  of  their  labors  in  this  work,  it  at  least  had  the 
chief  control  of  them;  od,  that  the  Spirit  breathed,  or 
made  known  the  Truth,  not  unconditionally  every- 
where, but  only  where  it  saw  fit  to  make  it  known, 
— vrhere,  in  other  words,  it  saw  that  the  Truth  would 
be  received. 

But  it  is  clear,  second,  that  the  world — i.e.  the  un- 
converted part  of  it,  or  sinners — cannot  receive  the 
Spirit;  that  is,  that  the  Spirit  cannot  enter  into  sin- 
ners ;  for  this  is  what  is  meant  by  receiving  the  Spirit : 
and  yet  it  is  clear  that  their  conviction  is  to  be  effected 
by  the  Spirit.  Since,  then,  the  Spirit  itself  cannot  enter 
into  the  unconverted,  it  must,  in  effecting  their  convic- 
tion,— which  is  a  work  in  the  inner  man, — effect  it  by 
something  which  does  enter  within  them.  And  what, 
we  ask,  can  this  be  but  the  Truth  ? 

But  what  is  conviction  ?  A  firm  persuasion  that  some- 
thing said  or  conceived  of  is  true.  And  this  would  make 
conviction  in  nothing  distinguishable  from  belief  Xor 
can  this  be  thought  incorrect  if  we  only  bear  in  mind 
that  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  defining  belief  in  regard  to  the 
past  or  the  unseen,  defines  it  to  be  conviction,  though  un- 
fortunately conviction  is  not  the  word  we  have  in  the 
common  vei*sion.  Indeed,  when  we  say  we  firmly  be- 
lieve a  thing  to  be  true, — say  that  Christ  arose  from  the 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  119 

dead, — and  we  are  convinced  that  it  is  true,  it  is  impoa 
sible  to  distinguish,  in  respect  to  meaning,  between  the 
two  forms  of  speech,  or  to  show  that  they  describe  two 
different  mental  states.  We  conclude,  then,  that  our 
view  of  conviction  is  correct. 

Now,  in  order  to  produce  conviction,  two  things,  and 
only  two,  are  necessary,  so  far  as  the  mere  object  and 
means  of  conviction  are  concerned, — to  Avit :  the  thing 
of  which  we  are  to  be  convinced,  which  must  be  ex- 
pressed intelligibly,  or  be  conceived  of,  in  the  form  of  a 
proposition ;  and  evidence  in  amount  and  kind  sufficient 
to  sustain  it.  These  two  things  being  present,  and 
attended  to  on  our  part,  conviction,  unless  deliberately 
resisted,  follows  by  an  immutable  law  of  the  human 
mind.  Let,  for  example,  the  thing  of  which  we  are  to 
be  convinced  be,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God.  For  this  truth,  whether  in  the  form  of  a 
proposition  or  merely  in  conception,  we  arc  absolutely 
indebted  to  the  Spirit.  For,  however  it  may  have  been 
suggested  by  the  Savior  and  confessed  by  the  apostles, 
long  since  would  it  have  perished  from  the  memory  of 
the  world,  but  for  the  record  of  it  which  we  owe  to  the 
Spirit.  How  true  it  is  that  none  can  say  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ  but  by  the  Spirit !  But  men  could  no  more 
have  believed  this  truth  without  the  evidence  on  which 
it  rests  than  have  invented  both  the  truth  itself  and  its 
evidence.  For,  although  within  itself  an  absolute  truth, 
still,  to  us  it  is  a  truth  only  as  it  is  proved  to  be  such. 
For  this  evidence  again  we  are  indebted  solely  to  the 
Spirit.  Here,  now,  the  Spirit  has  furnished  us  not  only 
the  thing  of  which  we  are  to  be  convinced,  but  the  evi- 


120 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


dence  in  quantity  and  in  kind  on  which  it  rests.  ISow, 
on  our  part,  this  thing  and  this  evidence  must  be  Tolun- 
tuarily  attended  to  ;  and,  if  so,  conviction  will  as  inevi- 
tably follow,  unless  deliberately  resisted,  as  pain  follows 
vice,  or  pleasure  follows  virtue.  If  conviction  is  not  thus 
produced,  then  it  is  a  dream.  We  care  not  what  the 
thing  may  be  of  which  we  are  to  be  convinced :  convic- 
tion is  the  same.  It  may  be  the  sublime  truth  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God;  or  the 
fact  that  he  died  for  our  sins ;  or  that  he  arose  for  our 
justification ;  or  that  man  by  his  sins  has  deeply  grieved 
the  Lord  before  whom  he  stands  all  guilty ;  or  it  may  be 
some  duty,  or  some  relation  :  in  a  word,  it  may  be  any 
truth,  fact,  relation,  or  duty,  and,  we  repeat,  conviction 
remains  the  same,  and,  in  all  cases,  takes  place  in  precisely 
the  same  way. 

Since,  therefore,  conviction  depends  on  the  Truth, 
proved  to  be  such,  and,  as  far  as  the  human  mind  can  see, 
on  nothing  else,  and  since  conviction  (in  the  view  we 
are  now  taking  of  it,)  and  conversion  are  the  same,  it 
follows  that  conversion  depends  on  the  Truth,  and  on  the 
Truth  alone. 

SECTION  XII. 

Our  eleventh  argument  is,  that  there  is  no  cause  knoiun 
to  have  contributed  to  the  conversion  of  the  three  thousand 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  except  the  Truth  which  they  heard; 
and  that  it  is  hence  unjust  and  unfair  to  infer  the  presence 
of  any  other. 

As  a  ground  for  this  argument,  we  shall  now  proceed 
to  submit  a  brief  analysis  of  the  case  of  conversion  re- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  121 

ferred  to.  The  Savior  had  said  to  the  disciples,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  Comforter,  I  depart  I  will  send  him  to 
you;  and  when  he  is  come  he  will  reprove  {convince)  the 
world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment." 
We  are  now,  therefore,  to  see  how  the  Spirit  did,  when 
come,  convince  the  world,  hy  what  means  it  did  it,  and, 
thus,  how  conversion  is  effected. 

The  disciples,  to  the  number  of  a  hundred  and  twenty, 
the  apostles  included,  had  met  in  an  upper  room  in  the 
city  of  Jerusalem.  The  day  was  important,  being  one 
on  which  a  great  national  festival  was  celebrated.  The 
city  was  crowded  with  strangers.  The  Savior  had 
taken  his  seat  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  as  Lord 
of  all.  He  had  received  the  Spirit,  and  on  that  day  sent 
it  forth.  It  entered  the  room  where  the  disciples  were 
met,  accompanied  by  a  sound  as  of  a  rushing  mighty 
wind.  It  sat  upon  each  of  them  in  the  form  of  separate 
tongues  of  flame.  The  symbol  was  appropriate.  Upon 
a  former  occasion,  when  descending  upon  the  Savior, 
the  Spirit  appeared  in  the  form  of  a  dove, — that  gentle 
bird  of  spring  whose  melancholy  note  and  quiet  man- 
ners made  it  a  fit  emblem  of  the  Spirit  when  descend- 
ing upon  the  Prince  of  peace.  But  the  apostles  were 
now  to  go  forth  on  a  fiery  mission,  were  now  to  engage 
in  a  fierce  conflict,  in  which  the  tongue  was  to  be  the 
great  offensive  instrument,  and  the  Truth  the  power.  It 
was  in  fine  taste,  therefore,  at  the  outset,  to  signify  all 
this  in  tongues  of  flame. 

The  hundred  and  twenty  were  all  filled  with  the 

Spirit,  and  began  to  speak  in  different  tongues  as  the 

Spirit  gave  them  utterance.    This  being  noised  abroi*d, 
11 


122  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

the  people  ran  together  and  were  greatly  pei-jDlexed. 
Some  ventured  solutions,  others  wondered,  others 
mocked. 

At  this  juncture  the  Apostle  Peter  arose  and  com- 
menced his  speech,  speaking  as  the  Spirit  moved 
him.  Into  the  merits  of  this  speech  we  enter  not. 
Suffice  it  to  say,  it  is  remarkable  for  its  simplicity, 
the  bold  individuality  of  its  parts,  the  brevity  and  per- 
tinency of  its  proofs,  its  regularity  and  grand  conclu- 
sion. The  apostle  closes  thus: — "Therefore  let  all  the 
house  of  Israel  know  assuredly,  that  God  hath  made 
that  same  Jesus,  whom  you  have  crucified,  both  Lord 
and  Christ."  The  effect  is  thus  described: — "Xow, 
when  they  heard  this,  they  were  pricked  in  their  heart, 
and  said  to  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles.  Men 
and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do 

Let  us  now  note  the  parties  present,  together  with 
their  relative  positions.  First,  then,  the  audience  was 
present,  and  giving  attention.  Will  Mr.  Jeter  inform  us 
why  ?  He  maintains  that  God,  by  a  "  gracious,  inward, 
efficacious  influence  of  his  Spirit,'^  secures  the  attention 
of  the  sinner.  Will  he  point  us  either  to  the  passage 
or  the  fact,  in  the  present  case,  which  teaches  it  ?  •  Cer- 
tainly not.  The  report  had  brought  the  people  toge- 
ther, and  what  they  heard  and  saw  secured  their  atten- 
tion.   This  explains  the  matter. 

But  the  Spirit  was  also  present:  and  where?  In  the 
audience  ?  Certainly  not ;  for  the  world  cannot  receive  it. 
It  was  present  in  the  apostles,  and  through  them  s^^eak- 
ing  into  the  hearts  of  the  people,  and  thus  touching 
them  into  life.    Hence,  when  the  people  heard,  they 


RETIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  123 


were  pierced  to  the  heart,  or  convinced.  To  what,  now, 
is  this  conviction  attributable  ?  To  what  the  audience 
heard  simply?  or  to  what  thej  heard  and  to  an  "in- 
fluence distinct  from  and  above  the  Truth"  ?  The  latter 
is  Jtlr.  Jeter's  position ;  the  former,  ours. 

The  case  may  be  stated  thus : — Vfe  have  an  effect — 
conviction — to  account  for :  and  how  shall  we  do  it  ? 
Shall  we  ascribe  it  to  the  one  cause,  t?te  Truth,  known 
to  be  present  and  acting,  and  which,  therefore,  need 
not  be  proved  ?  or  shall  we  ascribe  it  to  the  Truth,  and 
to  another  cause,  whose  very  existence  as  a  cause  is 
not  known,  and  whose  presence  it  is  hence  impossible 
to  prove?  Surely  none  can  doubt.  When  they  heard 
this  they  luere  pierced  to  the  heart.  Now,  what,  we  ask, 
in  reason's  name,  pierced  them,  save  the  Truth  which 
they  heard  ? 

But  !Mr.  Jeter  thinks  we  should  adopt  a  different  con- 
clusion. We  dissent  from  his  opinion.  We  have  not 
been  fashioned  after  that  easy  model  according  to  which 
blind  credulity  takes  the  place  of  sense,  and  supersti- 
tion the  place  of  faith.  We  believe  the  effect  was  due 
to  the  one  known  cause,  the  Truth,  which  God  put  in 
requisition  to  produce  it,  and  all  beyond  we  gladly 
leave  to  that  pliant  credulity  which  can  believe  with- 
out evidence,  and  to  that  enviable  penetration  which 
can  detect  the  presence  of  a  cause  where  no  cause 
exists. 


124  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


SECTION  XIII. 

Our  twelfth  argument  is,  that  the  conversion  of  the 
eunuch  justifies  belief  in  no  other  influence  as  the  cause 
of  his  conversion  except  the  Truth  which  he  heard. 

It  is  important  to  observe,  that  a  case  of  conversion 
may  be  examined  for  two  distinct  objects,  each  of  which 
has  its  own  separate  value  in  argument. 

1st.  We  may  examine  a  case  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining to  what  degree  of  minuteness  it  corresponds 
with  a  conclusion  assumed  to  be  already  established. 
In  this  case  the  effect  is  merely  corroborative;  though 
even  corroboration  may  be  of  a  nature  to  be  decisive. 
If  the  correspondence  is  exact  and  minute,  the  conclu- 
sion may  become  irresistible ;  it  being  taken  for  granted 
that  no  exact  and  very  minute  correspondence  could 
exist  between  a  false  conclusion  and  a  case  of  facts 
which  must  involve  the  very  reverse  of  that  conclusion. 

2d.  We  may  examine  a  case,  observing  and  collecting 
its  facts,  for  the  sake  of  tracing  them  to  such  conclu- 
sion as  they  lead  to.  In  this  case,  if  the  conclusion 
arrived  at,  and  the  conclusion  assumed  to  be  already 
established,  are  the  same,  the  presum]3tion  is  that  the 
conclusion  assumed  to  be  already  established  is  true. 

The  conclusion  which  we  shall  now  assume  to  be 
established  is  that  in  conversion  the  Spirit  operates 
through  the  Truth  only.  'Now,  what  aid,  whether  we 
have  one  or  the  other  of  the  preceding  objects  in  view, 
does  the  case  in  hand  lend  to  this  conclusion?  We 
shall  see. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  125 

The  eunuch,  on  his  way  to  Ethiopia,  was  reading  the 
boftk  of  Isaiah.  This  the  Spirit  inspired  the  prophet  to 
write;  hence  it  is  true.  But  Philip  was  passing,  to 
whom  the  Spirit,  which  was  in  him,  said,  Go  near 
and  join  yourself  to  this  chariot."  He  went,  and,  on 
approaching  it,  said  to  the  eunuch,  "Do  you  understand 
what  you  read?''  "How  can  I,''  was  the  reply,  "ex- 
cept some  one  should  guide  me?"  Philip  was  invited 
to  a  seat  in  the  chariot,  and,  on  taking  it,  began  at  the 
same  scripture  and  preached  to  the  eunuch,  Jesus. 

The  Spirit,  then,  was  present  but  in  Philip,  and  not 
in  the  eunuch ;  for  the  world  cannot  receive  it :  it  had 
spoken  but  to  Philip,  and  not  to  the  eunuch.  Xow, 
however,  it  was  speaking  to  the  eunuch,  but  speaking 
only  through  Philip ;  and  so  it  continued  till  conviction 
was  eifected.  All,  then,  that  was  said  to  the  eunuch, 
the  Spirit  said,  but  said  it  through  Philip ;  all  that  the 
eunuch  learned,  he  learned  from  the  Spirit,  but  learned 
it  through  Philip;  and  all  that  the  eunuch  felt,  the 
Spirit  caused  him  to  feel,  but  by  what  it  said.  And  this 
is  a  case  of  conversion. 

First,  then,  to  what  conclusion  does  it  lead?  Clearly 
to  the  following: — 1.  That  the  Spirit  operated  on  the 
eunuch.  2.  That  it  operated  through  the  Truth. 
3.  That  it  operated  in  no  other  way;  since  no  other 
way  is  either  named  or  hinted  at. 

Second — but  on  inspection  the  case  will  be  found  to 
correspond  exactly  with  the  conclusions  heretofore 
arrived  at  in  this  chapter.  Hence  we  conclude  that 
the  proposition  which  rests  jointly  on  the  present  case 
and  those  conclusions  must  be  true. 
11* 


126 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


But  where  is  the  evidence  that  the  Spirit  exerted  oli 
the  eunuch  an  ^'influence  distinct  from  and  above  the 
Truth"  ?  In  what  fact,  hint,  or  circumstance,  in  the 
case  itself,  shall  we  look  for  it  ?  That  evidence  does  not 
exist.  The  persuasion  that  it  does  is  a  distempered 
dream. 

SECTION  XIV. 

Our  thirteenth  argument  is,  that  the  Apostle  Paul  repre- 
sents himself  as  having  begotten  or  converted  the  Corinthians 
by  the  gospel;  and  that,  since  the  gospel  in  its  ordinary  ac- 
ceptation does  not  include  an  influence  distinct  from  and 
above  itself,  therefore  the  gospel  is  the  sole  influence  of  con- 
version. 

The  ground  on  which  Ihis  argument  rests  is  the 
following: — Though  you  have  ten  thousand  instructors 
in  Christ,  yet  have  you  not  many  fathers;  for  in  Christ 
Jesus  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  gospel." 

In  examining  different  cases  of  conversion,  since  con- 
version is  in  all  cases  the  same,  the  trait  with  which  we 
should  expect  to  be  most  struck  would  be  their  sub- 
stantial agreement  amidst  different  circumstances.  Ac- 
cordingly, it  is  curious  to  note  that  in  every  case  of  con- 
version, no  matter  what  the  surrounding  circumstances 
may  have  been,  the  first  thing  done  was  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  Truth;  that  this  was  presented  by  the  Spirit 
through  some  inspired  teacher  and  confirmed;  that  this 
Truth  is  then  represented  as  being  heard,  believed, 
received,  or  rejected;  and  that  then  conversion  ensued 
or  not,  just  as  the  Truth  was  received  or  rejected.  But 
in  no  case  have  we  the  slightest  evidence — p.ot  even  a 


REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


127 


Lint — that  the  Spirit  was  ever  at  work  in  any  other  way 
or  by  any  other  means.  Is  it  not  strange  that  the 
truth,  if  truth  it  is,  should  never  have  flashed  out  in  a 
single  ease?    The  circumstance  is  more  than  suspicious. 

Xow,  what  the  word  spoken  was  to  the  people  then 
converted,  the  word  written  is  to  us  of  the  present  age. 
As  it  was  then  the  sole  influence  of  conversion,  circum- 
stances providential  and  incidental  excepted,  so  is  it 
now.  As  the  Spirit  was  then  the  author  of  what  was 
said,  and  of  the  evidence  thereof,  and  hence  of  the  effect 
produced,  so  is  it  now  the  author  of  what  is  written, 
and  of  the  evidence  thereof,  and  hence  of  the  effect 
which  it  produces.  As  the  Spirit  was  then  present 
where  it  spoke,  so  is  it  now  present  where  it  has 
written;  and  as  what  it  then  said  was  quick  and  power- 
ful,— in  a  word,  spirit  and  life, — so  now  what  it  has 
written  has  without  abatement  the  same  subtle  energy. 
And  as  then  he  who  resisted  the  Truth  resisted  the 
Spirit,  so  is  it  now;  but  where  is  the  evidence — in  reason 
we  ask  where — ^that  any  soul  either  then  or  now  has 
ever  resisted  the  Spirit  by  resisting  an  ^'influence  dis- 
tinct from  and  above  the  Truth"  ? 

Let  us  suppose  the  gospel  to  be  the  sole,  the  unaided 
cause  of  conversion, — i.e.  unaided  by  any  influence  above 
itself;  and  that  it  was  the  intention  of  an  apostle,  in 
speaking  of  a  case  of  conversion  which  he  had  been 
chiefly  instrumental  in  effecting,  to  represent  this  fact : 
in  what  language,  if  he  were  not  speaking  literally, 
would  he  speak?  Would  it  not  be  in  language  like 
this? — Though  you  have  many  instructors  in  Christ, 
and  may  claim  to  have  been  quickened  or  converted 


1-8  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

by  many  influences,  yet  have  you  not  many  flithers, 
nor  have  you  been  converted  by  many  influences;  for 
in  Christ  Jesus  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  gospel. 
The  gospel  then,  or  the  Truth,  we  again  conclude,  is  the 
influence  of  conversion. 

SECTION  XV. 

Our  fourteenth  and  last  argument  is,  that  the  only 
knoivn  or  determinate  cause  of  Lydia's  conversion  was  the 
Truth  which  she  heard;  and  that  this  is  hence  the  real  cause 
of  conversion. 

The  case  may  be  resolved  into  the  question.  How  did 
the  Lord  open  Lydia's  heaH  ?  This  question  answered, 
all  else  is  simple.  Xow,  as  a  physical  opening  is  not 
contended  for,  this  subject  may  be  dismissed  at  once. 
And  as  to  open  the  mind  means  to  enlighten,  so  to  open 
the  heart,  where  it  means  any  thing  more,  means  to  in- 
fluence to  act.  More  than  this  the  phrase,  which  is 
certainly  metaphorical,  cannot  without  violence  be  made 
to  mean.  Hence  the  phrase,  ''whose  heart  the  Lord 
opened  that  she  attended  to  the  things  spoken  of  Paul," 
resolves  itself  into  the  more  literal  and  more  simple 
expression, — whom  the  Lord  influenced  to  attend  to 
what  Paul  said.  This  is  clearly  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase;  at  least,  more  than  this  its  terms  will  not  safely 
import.  Xow,  the  question  is,  by  what  means  did  the 
Lord  influence  Lydia  to  attend  or  to  obey?  That  he 
did  it  is  certain;  and  equally  as  certain  is  it  that  he 
influenced  the  Corinthians  to  obey,  and  the  eunuch  to 
obey;  but  the  question  is,  hy  what  means?   Mr.  Jeter 


REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


129 


thinks  he  influenced  Lydia  to  obey  by  a  "gracious, 
inward,  efficacious  influence  of  his  Spirit."  Doubtless 
f;he  influence,  whatever  it  was,  was  a  very  gracious  one. 
for  we  can  conceive  of  no  other;  quite  inward,  too, 
since  it  affected  the  woman's  heart;  very  efficacious, 
also,  since  it  induced  her  to  obey;  and  very  certain  that 
it  was  of  the  Spirit,  but  very  uncertain  whether  it 
differed  ft-om  the  Truth,  or  was  any  thing  more  than 
the  Truth. 

Eut  on  what  ground  does  ]\Ir.  Jeter  suppose  the  influ- 
ence to  have  been  a  special  one  ?  for  this  is  clearly  the 
force  of  his  language.  Is  it  because  God  is  limited  to  a 
special  influence  ?  If  he  so  affirm,  then  we  leave  him 
to  his  whim ;  and  yet  other  ground  he  cannot  name. 

Now,  it  is  clear, — 1st,  that  the  Spirit  was  present 
speaking  to  Lydia, — speaking  through  the  apostle ;  2d, 
that  she  heard  what  it  said;  3d,  that  there  is  an  im- 
mense motive-power  in  the  Truth;  4th,  but  not  one 
particle  of  evidence  that  the  Spirit  was  operating  on 
Lydia  in  some  other  way  than  through  the  Truth,  or 
exerting  more  power  than  is  in  the  Truth.  To  what 
conclusion,  then,  are  we  forced?  To  the  conclusion 
simply  that  the  Lord  influenced  her  to  obey  by  the  light 
and  motives  of  the  gospel. 

The  expression  "  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened'^  can 

safely  mean  no  more  than  this  : — that  the  work  was  of 

the  Lord.    Certainly  it  does  not  assert  the  exertion  of 

a  special  influence,  neither  does  it  necessarily  imply  it; 

hence,  there  is  no  ground  on  which  to  infer  it.  It 

merely  asserts  a  fact,  leaving  the  mode  of  its  occurrence 

wholly  unexplained;  and,  in  all  such  cases,  it  is  cer- 

I 


130 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


tainly  better  to  ascribe  the  fact  to  tlie  causes  known  to 
be  present  and  acting,  than  to  such  as  are  purely  ima- 
ginary. 

Here,  now,  we  close  the  defence  of  our  proposition, 
and,  from  all  the  facts,  premises,  and  reasonings  there- 
on, now  before  us,  feel  it  to  be  overwhelmingly  esta- 
blished, that  in  conversion  the  Spirit  operates  through  the 
Truth  only.  If  this  conclusion  is  not  true,  then  there  is 
neither  meaning  in  fact,  nor  force  in  argument.  In 
harmony  with  the  consciousness,  the  volitions,  and  the 
instincts  of  the  human  heart,  asserted  and  implied  in 
the  clearest  language  of  Holy  AVrit,  corroborated  by  the 
simplest  and  most  transparent  reasonings,  can  it  yet  he 
false?  It  is  at  variance  with  no  incident  in  the  life  of 
the  Savior,  with  none  in  the  history  of  the  apostles.  In 
order  to  establish  it  the  capacity  of  no  word  has  been 
overtaxed,  no  clause  forced  to  bear  a  reluctant  testi- 
mony, no  sentence  unnaturally  construed,  nor  any  verse 
interpreted  otherwise  than  in  harmony  with  the  long- 
established  and  simj^lest  laws  of  human  speech.  "We 
therefore  commit  it  to  the  world,  in  the  profound  belief 
that  all  who  will  sincerely  and  thoroughly  examine  the 
grounds  on  which  it  rests  will  pronounce  it  true,  cer- 
tainly true. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


131 


CHAPTEE  ly. 

OBJECTIONS  OF  MR.  JETER  TO    fHE  PRECEDING  DOCTRINE 
CONSIDI  lED. 

SECTION  I. 

We  now  proceed  to  consider  the  objections  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  preceding  chapter.  But  before  doing  this 
we  think  it  important  to  have  the  precise  point  stated 
against  which  these  objections  are  urged. 

The  question  of  difference  between  Mr.  Jeter  and  us 
is  strictly  a  question  of  fact,  but  a  question  involving 
two  facts.  We  both  agree  that  in  conversion  the  Spirit 
operates  :  what,  then,  is  the  difference  between  us  ?  It 
is  the  difference  between  accomplishing  a  given  result 
by  one  influence  of  an  agent  acting  uniformly  in  one  way, 
and  by  two  influences  of  the  same  agent,  acting,  one  uni- 
formly in  one  way,  the  other  indifferently  in  two  ways. 
We  maintain  that  conversion  is  effected  uniformly  in  one 
way, — namely,  through  the  Truth.  To  this  limitation 
^Ir.  Jeter  objects,  and  maintains  that  in  conversion  the 
Spirit  operates  not  only  through  the  Truth,  but  without 
it ;  and  not  only  by  all  the  power  in  the  Truth,  but  also 
by  another  influence  distinct  from  and  above  it.  When, 
then,  he  objects  to  our  doctrine,  it  is  evident  that  he 
objects,  not  to  what  we  do  teach,  hut  in  reality  to  what  we 
do  not  teach.  For,  so  far  as  we  do  teach,  he  agrees  with 
us;  but  he  objects  to  our  teaching  only  so  far.   In  other 


132  REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

words,  when  we  deny  that  the  Spirit  operates  in  con- 
version except  through  the  Truth,  or  exerts  therein  any 
influence  above  the  Truth,  he  affirms  that  we  deny 
falsely. 

When,  then,  he  urges  objections  against  our  teaching, 
we  shall  expect  him  to  urge  them  against  the  single 
point  now  named, —  to  \v  t:  our  limitation.  We  shall 
expect  him  to  show  that  this  limitation  is  wrong, — not 
directly,  certainly,  but  indirectly, — by  showing  that  the 
Spirit  does,  at  least  in  some  cases,  operate  in  conversion 
without  the  Truth;  and  that  in  all  cases  it  exerts  an  in- 
fluence distinct  from  and  above  it.  With  these  prelimi- 
naries we  shall  now  introduce  Mr.  Jeter's  first  objection, 
which  he  thus  states  : — 

Objection  1.  ^^Mr.  Campbeirs  theory  of  conversion  over- 
looks, or  at  least  underestimates,  the  inveteracy  of  human 
depravity/' 

It  does  not,  then,  it  seems,  overlook  depravity,  but 
only  the  inveteracy  of  it.  It  admits  the  existence  of  the 
thing,  but  denies  that  it  exists  in  so  intense  a  form  as 
that  for  which  Mr.  Jeter  contends.  This  is  precisely  the 
difference  between  him  and  us.  He  contends  not  merely 
that  depravity  exists,  but  that  it  exists  in  such  a  form  or 
to  such  a  degree  that  the  sinner  cannot  be  converted 
simply  by  the  Truth ;  but  that  the  Spirit  must  add  to 
this — or  exert  without  it — an  influence  distinct  from  and 
above  it,  and  acting  with  immeasurably  greater  vital 
force. 

Now,  as  not  depravity,  but  this  peculiar  degree  of  it,  is 
at  the  very  bottom  of  Islx.  Jeter's  whole  system  of 
spiritual  influence,  and,  as  we  conceive,  the  sole  argu- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  133 

ment  which  he  can  urge  in  its  defence,  he  should  have 
been  at  great  pains  to  estabhsh  it,  if  possible,  even  be« 
yond  a  caviL  But,  instead  of  this,  he  attempts  to  esta- 
blish the  existence  of  depravity  simply, — a  thing  which 
is  not  in  dispute.  For  the  question  between  him  and  us 
is  not  whether  depravity  exists,  but  whether  it  exists  to 
the  degree  contended  for  by  him.  The  veiy  thing  which 
we  utterly  deny  is,  that  any  degree  or  form  of  depravity 
exists  in  the  human  heart  which  renders  the  sinner  in- 
capable of  conversion  by  the  Truth.  Wliy,  now,  did  he 
not  attempt  to  establish  this  intense  form  or  peculiar 
degree  of  depravity?  To  such  a  task  he  knew  himself 
unequal.  Eut  a  difficulty  of  this  nature  never  strands 
Mr.  Jeter.  What  he  felt  a  conscious  inability  to  prove, 
he  felt  a  conscious  ability  to  assume  and,  accordingly, 
having  assumed  the  existence  of  a  form  or  degree  of  de- 
pravity which  has  no  existence,  he  bases  on  this  as- 
sumption an  objection  to  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  con- 
version. What,  now,  does  this  objection  amount  to  ? 
Simply  to  this : — that  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  overlooks 
Mr.  Jeter's  assumption, — a  small  matter,  truly!  It  is 
not  for  Mr.  Campbell  to  offset  one  assumption  by  an- 
other, but  to  abide  by  the  Truth,  and  offset  every  as- 
sumption by  a  simple  denial  of  its  truth,  until  its  truth 
is  proved. 

There  are  two  forms  of  depravity  in  the  existence  of 
which  we  do  not  believe : — one,  a  form  which  makes  it 
necessary  to  regenerate  infants  in  order  to  their  salva- 
tion ;  the  other,  a  form  which  renders  an  influence  dis- 
tinct from  and  above  the  Truth  necessary  to  conversion. 
And;  should  it  be  said  that  depravity  exists  in  these  two 

12 


134  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

forms  only,  then  we  are  prepared  to  deny  the  existence 
of  the  whole  thing. 

We  agree  to  the  mournful  truth  that  man  is  depraved, 
i.e.  that  his  reason  has  been  greatly  clouded  by  the  fall, 
that  his  tastes  and  feelings  have  been  perverted,  and 
that  he  no  longer  reflects  the  image — the  moral  image 
— of  his  great  Original  as  he  once  reflected  it;  that  he 
now  reflects  it  only  as  a  broken  mirror  reflects  the 
image  of  the  face  before  it.  The  three  respects  in  which 
man  has  chiefly  suffered  by  the  fall,  we  conceive  to  be 
his  subjection  to  mortality,  his  loss  of  the  moral  imago 
of  a  kind  Creator,  and  his  greater  exposedness  to  temp- 
tation and  sin.  In  some  of  these  respects,  certainly,  his 
misfortunes  may  be,  in  great  part,  even  in  this  life,  re- 
paired by  the  Eemedial  System;  but  the  consummation 
will  not  be  until  he  is  quickened  from  the  dead.  But,  as 
to  infants,  we  believe  that  all  they  lost  in  Adam,  even 
every  whit,  they  gain  in  Christ  without  one  vestige  of 
influence  from  the  Spirit,  save  quickening  them  from 
the  grave.  I^'either  in  reason  nor  in  revelation  is  there 
one  trace  of  evidence  that  an  infant  was  ever  yet,  from 
conception  up,  the  subject  of  one  ray  of  spiritual  influ- 
*  ence.    The  whole  conception  is  a  pure  delusion. 

"VYe  agree,  further,  that  all  (infants  included)  are  so 
frail  or  weak  that,  after  a  certain  period  of  life,  they 
not  only  sin,  but  that  they  are  even  inclined  to  sin. 
But  this  inclination  we  believe  to  be  owing,  at  first  at 
least,  rather  to  the  force  of  temptation,  and  the  feeble- 
ness of  the  resistance  offered  by  an  immature  resisting 
will  and  untaught  judgment,  than  to  any  thing  in  the 
form  of  an  innate,  inherited  depravity  so  inveterate 


REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  135 


that  resistance  becomes  nearly,  if  not  quite,  impossible. 
True,  we  all  inherit  that  frail  nature  which  renders  us 
BO  extremely  susceptible  of  temptation.  Nay,  we  will 
even  grant  that  we  inherit  it  in  an  aggravated  form, 
which  is  the  only  form  in  which  we  do  inherit  it.  But 
we  inherit  no  form  of  depravity  so  inveterate  as  to 
affect  the  perfect  freedom  of  the  will,  close  the  heart 
against  the  Truth,  or  render  man  insusceptible  of  being 
moved  by  motives ;  in  a  word,  no  form  which  renders 
him  incapable  of  being  converted  by  the  simple,  un- 
aided light  and  fbrce  of  divine  Truth. 

But  this  frailty  or  weakness  is  not  sin :  it  is  only  a 
condition  without  which  there  had  been  no  sin.  'Nov 
is  it  a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin.  Adam  possessed  it 
before  he  sinned,  else  he  had  not  sinned;  hence,  it  is 
not  a  consequence  of  his  sin.  It  is,  however,  a  condition 
of  sin,  since  without  it  Adam  could  not  have  sinned; 
but  it  is  only  a  condition.  Nor,  perhaps,  will  facts  war- 
rant the  conclusion  that  this  frailty  is,  even  in  our  case, 
greatly  increased.  For  greater  weakness  in  sinning 
was  never  displayed  than  by  Adam.  He  yielded  to  the 
first  temptation  ever  presented  to  him,  without,  so  far 
as  we  know,  offering  even  the  slightest  resistance.  No 
one  of  his  descendants  ever  did  more. 

But  what  has  Mr.  Jeter  to  urge  in  defence  of  this 
inveterate  form  of  depravity  f  The  following  extract 
contains  his  plea  : — 

^'  The  Spirit  of  inspiration  has  drawn  the  picture  of 
man's  moral  corruption  in  gloomy  colors.  He  is  utterly 
iepraved, — fleshly,  sensual,  and  impure.  ^  That  which 
is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh    John  iii.  6.    He  is  without 


136 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


spiritual  life,  without  holiness,  without  moral  worth, — 
^  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins Eph.  ii.  1.  He  is  alien- 
ated from  God,  and  opposed  to  his  law,  and,  conse- 
quently, to  truth  and  righteousness.  ^Because  the 
carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God  :  for  it  is  not  subject 
to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be Eom.  viii.  7. 
This  depravity  pervades  and  controls  the  whole  man, — 
blinding  the  mind,  perverting  the  affections,  stupefying 
the  conscience,  making  rebellious  and  obstinate  the  will, 
and  prostituting  the  members  of  the  body  as  the  instru- 
ments of  sin.  And  this  moral  corruj^tion  of  human 
nature  is  universal.  ^For  all  have  sinned  and  come 
short  of  the  glory  of  God :'  Eom.  iii.  23." 

There  is  here  an  obvious  effort  to  overstrain  the 
truth,  which  within  itself  is  bad  enough  without  any 
heightening.  But  all  this  overcoloring,  which  is  no- 
thing else  than  a  species  of  falsehood,  is  designed  merely 
to  create  the  impression  that  there  is  a  necessity  for 
some  very  peculiar  spiritual  influence  in  conversion. 
But  it  is  proper  to  descend  to  particulars. 

1st.  ^'He  [man]  is  utterly  depraved, — fleshly,  sensual, 
and  impure.    '  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh 
John  iii.  6." 

I^'ow,  we  freely  grant  that  that  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh  is  flesh;  but  that  flesh  and  utter  depravity  mean  the 
same  thing,  or  represent  the  same  idea,  is  something 
we  do  not  believe.  To  assume  that  they  do  is  to  as- 
sume the  very  question  in  dispute.  That  question  is 
not  whether  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  nor 
even  whether  it  is  fleshly;  but  whether  flesh  means 
utter  depravity,  or  implies  a  degree  of  it  so  inveterate 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  137 


that  the  sinner  cannot  be  converted  without  a  "  super 
natural  agency."  We  repeat,  there  is  no  question  be- 
tween Mr.  Jeter  and  us  but  a  question  of  degree.  He 
asserts  not  merely  that  man  is  depraved,  but  that  he  is 
utterly  depraved.  We  deny  that  the  term  utterly  is  ap- 
plicable :  he  affirms  it.  How,  now,  does  he  undertake 
to  make  his  affirmation  good?  By  assuming,  in  the 
first  place,  that  the  word  flesh  means  fleshly;  and,  in 
the  second,  that  to  be  fleshly  is  to  be  utterly  depraved. 
But  we  deny  the  truth  of  his  assumption  in  the  first 
place  and  in  the  second.  The  passage  does  not  say, 
that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  fleshly,  neither  is  this 
its  meaning,  but,  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh. 
Neither  does  the  word    flesh"  imply  utter  depravity. 

2d.  He  [man]  is  without  spiritual  life,  without  holi- 
ness, without  moral  worth, — ^dead  in  trespasses  and 
sins     Eph.  ii.  1." 

Kow,  we  admit  that  man,  unregenerate,  is  without 
spiritual  life,  without  holiness,  but  not  quite  that  he  is 
without  moral  worth ;  or,  rather,  we  admit  that  man  is 
unregenerate.  But  this  is  not  the  question  at  issue, 
neither  does  it  imply  it.  Is  a  man  who  is  admitted  to 
be  without  spiritual  life  to  be  therefore  deemed  utterly 
depraved?  This  is  the  question.  If  to  be  destitute  of 
spiritual  life  were  a  consequence  of  utter  depravity,  or 
necessarily  implied  it,  then  of  course  the  existence  of 
that  would  prove  the  reality  of  this.  But,  before  such 
destitution  can  be  so  used,  it  must  be  shown  to  be  such 
a  consequence  or  to  carry  such  necessary  implication. 
But  this  is  what  Mr.  Jeter  has  not  attempted.  The 
absence  of  one  thing  can  never  be  used  to  prove  the 

12* 


I 

loS  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


presence  of  another,  unless  the  one  cannot  he  ahsent 
without  the  other  being  present.  Hence,  the  absence 
of  spiritual  life  can  never  be  used  to  prove  the  presence 
of  utter  depravity,  unless  that  could  not  be  absent 
without  this  being  present.  Kor  would  it  be  sufficient, 
to  establish  IMr.  Jeter's  conclusion,  to  show  that  the  ab- 
sence of  spiritual  life  implies  the  presence  of  depravity. 
It  must  be  shown  that  it  implies  utter  depravity,  or  a 
form  of  it  so  inveterate  that  conversion  is  impossible 
without  a  "supernatural  agency."  For,  as  before  re- 
marked, we  adm  i  that  the  sinner  is  depraved,  but 
still  deny  that  any  power  besides  the  Truth  is  neces- 
sary to  his  conversion. 

The  expression  "dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,'^  with 
which  ]^Ir.  Jeter  terminates  the  preceding  extract,  and 
upon  which  he  rests  its  truth,  proves  nothing  in  his 
favor.  If  an  absolute  death  were  meant,  then  perhaps 
it  might;  but  such  is  not  the  case.  A  man  absolutely 
dead  is  as  incapable  of  sinning  as  he  is  of  being  righteous, 
whether  the  death  be  that  of  the  body  or  that  of  the 
spirit.  Yet  the  persons  alluded  to  were  dead  in  6ms, — 
that  is,  the  sins  which  they  were  actually  committing 
every  day. 

Indeed,  the  very  power  to  sin  involves  a  virtual  re- 
futation of  one  of  ^Ir.  Jeter's  chief  objections  to  our 
theory  of  conversion, — to  wit,  the  impotency  of  motives 
on  the  sinner's  will.  The  power  to  sin  is  not  the  mere 
physical  power  to  sin,  but  the  moral  ^^ower.  It  is  the 
power  to  sin  or  not  just  as  we  choose.  He  who  cannot 
choose  between  sinning  and  not  sinning  cannot  sin. 
And  the  power  to  choose  implies  the  power  to  choose 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


139 


for  reasons,  and  thisf,  of  course,  that  he  who  chooses  is 
susceptible  of  being  determined  by  motives.  This  is  all 
we  contend  for;  but,  in  contending-  for  this,  it  must  be 
apparent  that  we  contend  not  merely  that  the  sinner 
can  be  determined  by  motives  in  some  cases,  but  that 
he  can  be  in  all  cases,  and  hence,  of  course,  in  that  of 
conversion. 

In  the  expression  ^^dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,"  the 
word  dead  is  evidently  employed  not  in  an  absolute,  but 
in  a  relative,  sense.  A  sinner,  though  dead  in  sins,  is 
not  absolutely  dead,  but  only  dead  to  righteousness : 
just  as  a  righteous  man,  though  dead  in  a  sense,  is  not 
absolutely  dead,  but  only  dead  to  sin.  And  as  the 
righteous  man,  though  dead  to  sin,  is  not  so  far  dead 
that  he  cannot  be  induced,  by  the  force  of  temptation, 
to  sin  again,  so  the  sinner,  though  dead  to  righteous- 
ness, is  not  so  far  dead  that  he  cannot  be  induced,  by 
the  force  of  truth  and  motives,  to  mend  his  life  :  only 
there  is  this  difference, — that,  being  more  strongly  in- 
clined to  sin  than  to  righteousness,  we  need  to  be  acted 
upon  by  more  powerful  motives  in  the  one  case  than  in 
the  other.  What  now  of  utter  depravity  is  deducible 
from  the  expression  ^^dead  in  trespasses  and  sins''? 
Clearly  none. 

3d.  "He  [man]  is  alienated  from  God,  and  opposed  to 
his  law,  and,  consequently,  to  truth  and  righteousness. 
'  Because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God  :  for  it 
is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be 
Eom.  viii.  7." 

The  carnal  mind — or,  emphatically,  Me  mind  of  the  flesh, 
which  is  here  said  to  be  enmity  to  God — is  something 


140  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

which,  in  this  life,  is  never  subject  to  the  will  of  God; 
indeed,  it  cannot  be.  Xo  power  can  tame  it.  Hence  it 
is  as  lawless  in  the  saint  as  in  the  sinner.  There  is  this 
difference : — the  saint,  by  the  Spirit,  holds  it  in  check; 
but  the  sinner  is  governed  by  it.  Both  can  control  it 
if  they  will,  at  least  to  a  great  extent;  but  neither  can 
subdue  it  completely.  The  determination  to  control  it, 
the  effort  to  do  so,  and  the  partial  success,  make  the 
difference  between  the  Christian  and  the  sinner. 

But,  ^Ir.  Jeter  will  say,  does  not  this  prove  that  there 
is  a  work  to  be  done  in  man  which  cannot  be  accom- 
plished by  the  Truth  ?  Certainly  not.  Indeed,  it  proves 
nothing  about  a  work  to  he  done  in  man,  but  rather  that 
there  is  a  work  which  cannot  be  done  in  him.  It  rather 
proves  that  there  is  a  principle  in  him  which  cannot  bo 
subdued  at  all,  cannot  be  subjected  to  the  law  of  God, 
either  by  the  Truth  or  by  an  influence  distinct  from  and 
above  it.  It  still  leaves  the  question  of  his  conversion 
by  the  Truth  intact ;  for,  even  after  his  conversion,  this 
principle  remains  the  same,  except  that  it  is  kept  in 
abeyance. 

Having  thus  complimented  Mr.  Jeter's  first  objection 
far  beyond  what  any  person  except  himself  will  think 
it  merits,  we  shall  here  dismiss  it. 

SECTION  II. 

Objection  2.  '^It  [Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  conversion] 
is  oblivious  of  the  chief  difficulty  in  conversion." 

Xow,  all  must  admit  that  the  chief  difficalty  in  con- 
version is  a  serious  one,  and  that  any  theory  which 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  141 


overlooks  it  must  be  extremely  defective.  But  m  what 
consists  this  chief  difficulty?  We  shall  let  the  follow- 
ing language  of  Mr.  Jeter  explain : — 

"Mr.  Campbell  maintains  that  ^the  arguments  which  ., 
are  written  in  the  New  Testament'  must  be  'under- 
stood,' in  order  to  exert  their  influence  on  the  human 
mind.  (Christianity  Eestored,  p.  350.)  To  understand 
these  arguments  requires  attention,  candor,  and  spiritual 
discernment.  Men  attend  readily  to  what  they  delight 
in,  and  believe  easily  what  is  congenial  with  their  tastes; 
but  the  ^natural  man,^  the  unrenewed,  sinful  man,  has 
a  defep-rooted  aversion  to  divine  Truth.  This  aversion 
is  an  element  and  a  proof  of  his  depravity.  He  may 
hear  or  read  the  arguments  contained  in  the  Scriptures, 
through  curiosity,  politeness,  or  a  captious  sj^irit;  but 
to  expect  of  him  a  candid,  serious,  docile,  and  obedient 
attention  to  them  is  to  expect  to  gather  grapes  of 
thorns  or  figs  of  thistles.'' 

The  "chief  difficulty,"  then,  it  seems,  in  conversion,  is 
to  understand  the  "  arguments"  of  the  New  Testament; 
and  of  this  "chief  difficulty"  Mr.  Campbell's  theory 
is  "  oblivious :"  at  least  such  is  the  case  if  w^e  are  to 
credit  the  romancing  of  Mr.  Jeter. 

Now,  three  things,  and  only  three,  say  all  sensible  and 
sober-minded  men,  (and  the  Bible  says  not  to  the  con- 
trary,) are  necessary  to  understand  an  argument: — • 
1st,  that  it  shall  be  within  itself  intelligible ;  2d,  that  we 
possess  the  ability  to  understand  it;  3d,  that  we  give  it 
the  requisite  attention.  Mr.  Jeter  does  not  pretend  that 
the  arguments  of  the  New  Testament  are  not  intelligible, 
nor  that  we  have  not  the  ability  to  understand  them. 


142  REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAmXED. 

What,  then,  lack  we  vet?  '^Attention,  candor,  and  spi- 
ritual discernment,"  it  would  seem.  First,  then,  it  re- 
quires attention.  Granted.  Second,  it  requires  candor. 
This  is  not  tme.  K  an  argument  be  intelligible  within 
itself,  and  a  man  possess  the  ability  to  understand  it, 
and  give  it  the  requisite  attention,  understand  it  he  will 
though  he  possess  not  one  particle  of  candor.  Without 
candor  he  may  not  acknowledge  ih2ii  he  understands  it; 
or,  acknowledging  it,  he  may  not  yield  to  it :  but  these 
are  different  matters  altogether.  Thii'd,  it  requires 
^'spiritual  discernment.^'  It  requires  common  senses  and 
nothing  more.  What  Jeter  means  by  "  spii'itual  dis- 
cernment" he  has  not  informed  us;  and,  as  we  cannot 
conjecture,  we  shall  pass  the  matter  without  further 
notice. 

But  how  shall  we  secure  the  sinner's  attention?  For 
clearly,  according  to  ^VTr.  Jeter,  this  is  the  chief  difficulty 
in  the  way  of  his  understanding  the  Truth ;  and,  indeed, 
according  to  our  scheme,"  if  we  are  to  beheve  him,  it 
would  seem  insuperable.  In  the  first  place,  we  shall 
frankly  grant  that  our  scheme"  makes  no  provision  to 
secure  the  attention  of  many  of  the  human  family.  We 
mention  the  following  classes : — 1.  Such  as  will  not  come 
to  Christ  that  they  might  have  life.  2.  Such  as  hate  the 
light  and  will  not  come  to  it.  3.  Such  as  reject  the  coun- 
sel of  God  against  themselves.  4.  Such  as  judge  them- 
selves unworthy  of  eternal  life.  5.  Such  as  close  their 
ears  and  shut  their  eyes,  lest  they  should  see  and  hear 
and  be  converted.  6.  Such  as  will  not  attend  without  a 
supernatural  agency  of  the  Soly  SpArit.  For  securing  the 
attention  of  these  classes,  we  are  free  to  confess^  our 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  143 

^^Bcheme"  makes  little  provision;  and  we  shall  only  add, 
the  gospel  makes  none.  aSo,  gentle  reader;  it  is  Mr 
Jeter's  "scheme"  that  makes  provision  for  securing  the 
attention  and  achieving  the  salvation  of  all  these  classes ! 
Has  it  not  boundless  claims  on  your  charity  ? 

But  we  have  not  yet  answered  the  question,  How  shall 
we  secure  the  sinner's  attention  ?  We  reply,  Precisely  as 
did  Christ  and  his  apostles.: — by  presenting  to  his  mind, 
as  supremely  worthy  of  his  attention,  immortality  and 
eternal  life;  and  by  showing  him  that  these  lie  com- 
pletely within  his  reach  on  condition  that  he  submit  to 
the  Savior.  If  neither  these  nor  the  terrors  of  the 
Lord  move  him,  the  wrath  of  God  rests  on  him,  and  he 
is  lost.  ]S^either  reason  nor  revelation  sanctions  any 
other  mode  of  securing  the  sinner's  attention. 

SECTION  III. 

Objection  3.  "Suppose  this  great  difficulty  obviated, 
the  sinner's  attention  arrested,  and  Truth  brought  clearly 
before  his  mind  :  would  knowledge  of  divine  Truth,  without 
the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit,  secure  his  conversion^" 

To  which,  of  course,  the  answer  is,  it  would  not.  Xow, 
we  reply,  if  divine  Truth,  when  known  or  understood, 
effects  not  the  conversion  of  the  sinner,  then  his  con- 
version is  provided  for  by  no  system  of  religion  which 
is  divine.  At  least,  if  the  Christian  religion  has  made 
such  provision,  the  fact  has  never  been  discovered. 
Against  this  position,  so  strong  because  so  true,  no  argu- 
ment worthy  of  the  name  has  ever  yet  been  made. 
True,  a  thousand  feeble  sallies,  such  as  those  we  are  now 


144 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


considering,  have  been  made  against  it;  but  as  yet  it 
has  sustained  no  injury.  It  has  its  confirmation  in  the 
whole  history  of  God's  dealings  with  the  human  family, 
and  finds  its  sanction  in  the  silent  sense  of  the  human 
soul. 

But,  after  propounding  the  preceding  objection  in  the 
form  of  an  inquiry,  Mr.  Jeter  adds,  ^^If  ignorance  is  the 
only  evil  with  which  the  gospel  has  to  contend,  then, 
obviously,  the  illumination  of  the  mind  is  all  that  is 
necessary  for  its  removal.  But  ignorance,  though  it 
may  be  in  itself  criminal,  is  rather  the  effect  than  the 
cause  of  man's  depravity.  There  is  a  corruj^t  disposi- 
tion which  blinds  the  understanding.  '  This  is  the  con- 
demnation, that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men 
loved  darkness  rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds 
were  evil John  iii.  19.  The  love  of  darkness — which 
signifies  ignorance  or  error — is  the  very  root  of  man's 
depravity.  This  love  implies  an  aversion  to  light,  truth, 
and  holiness,  and  is  the  cause  of  the  prevalent  ignorance 
of  divine  things  in  the  world.'' 

The  love  of  ignorance,  then,  is  the  veiy  root  of  man's 
depravity, — a  love  which  implies  aversion  to  light,  truth^ 
and  holiness,  and  is  the  cause  of  the  prevalent  ignorance 
of  divine  things  in  the  world.  These  are  certainly  fear- 
ful results.  But  are  they  results  of  man's  depravity? 
"We  shall  concede  for  thf  present  that  they  are,  and  of 
that  inveterate  form  of  it  for  which  Mr.  Jeter  contends. 
Xow,  is  man  the  author  of  this  form  of  depravity?  The 
present  generation  at  least  is  not,  since  it  is  inherited. 
Has  he  the  power  to  modify  its  intensity  or  control  it  as 
a  cause?   Of  course  he  has  not.   Is  he,  then,  responsible 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


145 


for  his  love  of  darkness^  his  aversion  to  light,  truth, 
and  holiness,  and  his  ignorance  of  divine  things  ?  It  is 
impossible.  Indeed,  concede  the  existence  of  this  form 
of  depravity,  and  these  results  become  harmless  as  the 
sigh  of  the  wind.  ^  And  this  is  a  legitimate  result  from 
Mr.  Jeter's  position.  Deny  it  as  he  will,  or  explain  it  as 
he  may,  still  it  follows.  JSTor,  indeed,  is  this  all.  The 
real  conclusion  from  his  position  is,  that  man  is  the  mere 
creature  of  necessity,  with  no  more  power  to  avoid  being 
what  he  is,  or  doing  what  he  does,  than  a  stone  at  rest 
has  to  put  itself  in  motion.  "We  advocate  no  scheme'' 
of  conversion  certainly  which  provides  a  remedy  for  a 
case  like  this,  alike  disgraceful  to  the  Author  of  man 
and  destructive  of  human  accountability. 

But  will  Mr.  Jeter  say  that  these,  though  results  of 
depravity,  are  still  to  be  regarded  as  sins  ?  If  so,  then 
they  happened  by  the  sanction  of  the  human  will.  Man 
might  have  prevented  them,  but  did  not, — not  because 
he  could  not,  but  because  he  would  not.  All  the  diffi- 
culty this  view  of  the  case  presents,  we  accept,  and  for 
it  (in  the  view  we  take  of  conversion)  make  as  complete 
provision  as  can  be  made. 

We  admit  certainly  that,  in  the  presentation  of  the 
Truth,  other  and  serious  obstacles  besides  ignorance 
have  to  be  encountered.  ]^ay,  more:  we  admit  that 
many  have  to  be  encountered  of  a  nature  so  serious  that 
the  view  we  take  of  conversion  makes  no  provision  what- 
ever to  overcome  them,  and  that  hence  many  of  the 
human  family  will  be  lost.  Does  Mr.  Jeter's  " scheme''  make 
provision  to  overcome  them  all?  There  is  something  ex- 
ceedingly perverse  in  his  mode  of  treating  our  view  of 
13  K 


146 


REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


conversion.  He  treats  it  as  if  faulty  because  it  makes 
not  provision  to  overcome  every  conceivable  obstacle  in 
the  way  of  conversion;  and  yet  be  presents  a  no  more 
feasible  plan.  Does  tne  Cbristian  religion^  we  ask,  con- 
template the  removal  of  all  obstacles  to  conversion,  and 
bence  the  conversion  of  all  ? 

But  we  do  maintain  that  every  removable  obstacle  in 
the  way  of  conversion  not  only  may  be  made  to  yield, 
but  tbat  it  actually  does  yield,  when  it  yields  at  all,  to 
tbe  Truth,  and  to  the  Truth  alone.  The  inherent,  bril- 
liant light  of  the  Truth,  its  searching  heat  and  power, 
no  obstacle  can  w^ithstand,  save  the  voluntary  and 
deliberate  resistance  of  man.  And  against  this  resist- 
ance no  pro\Hsion  can  be  made. 

SECTION  IV. 

Objection  4.  "The  theory  under  discussion  is  contradicted 
by  numerous  icell-authenticated  facts." 

In  proof  of  which  ]\Ir.  Jeter  presents  first  this  ^^fact:" 
— ^^If  all  the  converting  power  of  the  Spirit  is  in  the 
arguments  addressed  by  him  in  words  to  the  mind,  then 
it  follows  that  every  minister  of  the  word  must  be  suc- 
cessful in  converting  souls  to  Christ  in  proportion  to 
the  distinctness  with  which  he  presents  the  arguments 
of  the  Spirit  to  the  minds  of  his  hearers.  The  same 
measure  of  power  must,  under  similar  circumstances, 
produce  similar  results.  But  does  this  conclusion  agree 
with  the  experience  and  observation  of  Christian  minis- 
ters 

We  reply,  if  the  power  be  uniform,  and  the  circum- 


REVIEW  OF  CA3IPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


147 


stances  precisely  similar,  then  tlie  results  will  be  so  too. 
Kow,  we  maintain  that  tho  converting  power  is  in  the 
Truth^  and,  hence,  that  the  power  is  uniform.  But  are 
the  circumstances  precise??/  similar?  Xr.  Jeter  knew  that 
they  are  not,  and  yet  he  has  the  front  to  put  the  case  as 
against  us.  Eut  are  the  circumstances  so  far  similar  as 
to  justify  the  expectation  of  even  nearly-similar  results? 
They  are  not.  But,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  so  very 
dissimilar  as  to  justify  the  expectation  of  the  most  dis- 
similar results.  This  is  the  conclusion  which  agrees 
with  the  experience  and  observation  of  Christian 
ministers. 

Audiences  vary  in  ways  which  are  almost  infinite; 
each  one  of  which  will  serve  to  prevent  a  uniform  result 
from  preaching.  Xo  two  can  be  found  commanding 
precisely  the  same  amount  of  intellect;  and  then  in  point 
of  cultivation  they  differ  most  widely.  These  two  cir- 
cumstances of  themselves  are  enough  to  account  for 
the  most  dissimilar  results.  But,  in  addition  to  these, 
prejudices  innumerable,  and  as  various  as  numerous, 
have  to  be  encountered.  The  resistance  met  with  by 
the  Truth  from  all  these  sources  is  such  as  to  cause  us 
rather  to  wonder  that  the  results  are  so  nearly  uniform 
as  they  are  than  to  expect  them  to  be  completely  so. 

Eut,  in  farther  proof  of  his  objection,  Mr.  Jeter  pre- 
sents, second,  this  ^^fact:'' — '^Eut  I  need  not  appeal  in 
this  argument  to  questionable  evidence.  Christ  was  an 
unrivalled  preacher  of  the  gosj)el.  [Mark  i .  1 :  ^  Xever  man 
spake  as  he  did.'  ....  But  what  was  the  result  of  his 
ministry?  It  was  unsuccessful: — not  wholly  so; — but  it 
produced  no  such  results  as  from  his  pre-eminent  qualifi- 


148  REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


cations  might  have  been  expected;  no  great  moral  revo- 
lution, and  no  extensive  revival  of  true  religion.'^ 

Christ's  ministry,  then,  was  unsuccessful;  only  it  was 
not  wholly  so.  Be  it  so,  then.  But  was  it  unsuccessful 
because  of  any  want  of  power  in  the  Truth  ?  If  so,  Mr. 
Jeter  has  not  shown  it.  ^o.  It  was  unsuccessful,  as 
far  as  it  was  so  at  all,  because  of  the  deliberate  resistance 
offered  to  the  Truth  by  the  Jews.  This  is  the  reason  why 
it  was  unsuccessful. 

Upon  various  occasions  and  in  different  language  did 
the  Savior  account  for  his  lack  of  success.  ISTow,  to 
what  causes  did  he  attribute  it?  Among  others,  we 
mention  the  following : — 

1.  ^^This  people's  heart  is  waxed  gross,  and  their  ears 
are  dull  of  hearing,  and  their  eyes  they  have  closed, 
lest  at  any  time  they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and 
hear  with  their  ears,  and  should  understand  with  their 
heart,  and  should  be  converted,  and  I  should  heal  them.'' 

2.  ^^Had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  believed 
me:  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his 
writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my  words 

3.  "How  can  ye  believe,  who  receive  honor  one  of 
another,  and  seek  not  the  honor  that  cometh  from  God 
only?'' 

4.  "Ye  will  not  come  to  me  that  ye  might  have  life." 
But,  among  all  the  causes  assigned  by  the  Savior, 

did  he  ever  once  rnention  a  want  of  power  in  the  Truth  ? 
Whether  then  is  it  safer  to  ascribe  his  want  of  success 
to  the  causes  which  he  himself  mentions,  or  to  such  as 
he  never  even  once  alludes  to? 

But  how  does  Mr.  Jeter  account  for  the  Savior's  want 


REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  149 


of  success?  ^^The  converti?^g  power  of  the  Spirit,"  is  liis 
own  language,  "was  not  present, — was  withheld  in  wisdom 
and  righteous  judgment."  We  blush  for  tlie  pen  that 
drew  this  libel  upon  the  di'^dne  character.  In  charity 
let  us  hope  its  author  penned  it  in  haste,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  some  dreadful  pressure,  without  stopping  to 
reflect  on  his  deed.  The  converting  power  of  the  Spirit 
was  withheld,  hence  conversion  was  impossible;  and  yet 
the  Savior  said  to  the  multitude,  ^'Ye  will  not  come  to 
me  that  ye  might  have  life/'  when  he  perfectly  knew 
that  they  came  not,  not  because  they  would  not,  but 
because  they  could  not!  The  converting  power  of  the 
Spirit  was  withheld,  hence  conversion  could  not  be ;  and 
yet  the  unconverted  were,  by  the  high  decree  of  heaven, 
doomed  to  perdition  for  refusing  to  be  what  they  could 
not  he!  What  is  this  but  to  tender  to  man  a  religion 
which  he  cannot  accept,  and  then  to  damn  him  for  re- 
jecting it?  And  all  this  is  coolly  charged  to  the  account 
of   wisdom  and  righteous  judgment"  ! 


SECTION  V. 

Objection  5.  "Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  the  Spirit's  in- 
fluence is  incompatible  with  prayer  for  the  conversion  of 
sinners." 

1.  Has  God  but  one  way  in  which  he  can  answer  prayer 
for  the  conversion  of  sinners, — to  wit,  through  an  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  and  above  the  Truth?  If 
not,  then  the  objection  is  void.  Mr.  Campbell's  theory 
is  certainly  incompatible  with  prayer  for  the  conversion 
of  sinners  through  a  "supernatural  agency,"  but  not  with 

13* 


150 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLIS3I  EXAMINED. 


prayer  for  their  conversion  in  any  Avay  in  wliicli  con- 
version ever  happens. 

2.  3Ir.  Jeter  is  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  manner  in 
which  our  heavenly  Father  answers,  where  he  does  so 
at  all,  the  prayers  of  his  children.  We  know  not  what 
we  should  j)ray  for  as  we  ought,  and  surely  much  less 
the  manner  in  which  these  prayers  are  replied  to.  It  is 
enough  for  us  to  know  that  'Sprayer  for  all  men''  has 
been  made  our  duty.  Hence  we  pray  for  them,  not 
because  it  happens  to  be  compatible  with  some  theory, 
however  wise,  but  because  God  has  made  it  our  duty  to 
do  so.  All  beyond  a  conscientious  discharge  of  our  duty 
we  leave  with  Him  who  works  all  things  after  the  coun- 
sel of  his  will.  That  he  does,  in  the  way  which  to  him 
seems  best,  answer  or  not  these  prayers  as  they  happen 
to  accord  or  not  with  his  gracious  plans  and  to  be  for 
the  good  of  his  erring  children,  we  profoundly  believe. 
When,  now,  2tlr.  Jeter  undertakes  to  set  Mr.  Campbell's 

theory  of  the  Spirit's  influence"  aside,  after  having  so 
signally  failed  to  do  so  in  other  ways,  by  an  objection 
based  on  his  profound  ignorance  of  the  manner  in  which 
God  answers  prayer,  he  compliments  neither  his  head 
nor  his  heart. 

3.  There  is  no  duty  upon  the  propriety  and  necessity 
of  which  Christian  men  are  more  cordially  agreed,  than 
that  of  frequent  fervent  prayer  for  the  conversion  of 
sinners.  Any  system  of  religion  which  should  ignore 
it  would  be  justly  exposed  to  the  derision  of  all  good 
men.  3Ir.  Jeter  knew,  and  admits,  (reluctantly,  we 
fear,)  that  3Ir.  Campbell  and  his  brethren  believe  in 
and  practise  this  duty.    And  yet  he  wished  to  expose 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  151 

US  as  a  denomination  to  the  odium  wliicli  lie  knew  could 
attach  to  a  people  only  who  repudiate  the  duty;  and 
this  he  sought  to  do  by  an  effort  to  make  it  appear 
that  our  'Hheory"  of  spiritual  influence  is  ^'incompatU 
ble"  with  prayer  for  the  conversion  of  sinners.  There 
is  not  a  more  unmanly  thing  in  his  book,  numerous  as 
such  things  are,  than  the  preceding  objection.  But,  in 
a  work  written  to  insult  and  not  to  refute,  we  could  ex- 
pect nothing  better. 

•  SECTION  VI. 

Objection  6.  ''3fr.  CamphelVs  theory  of  conversion  is  in- 
consistent with  the  introduction  of  the  millennium.'' 

In  support  of  this  objection,  Mr.  Jeter  has  written 
some  seven  pages ;  and  yet  in  not  one  line  of  the  seven 
has  he  furnished  a  particle  of  evidence  that  his  objection 
states  the  truth.  It  is  an  objection  of  a  piece  with  the 
one  immediately  preceding  it, —  strictly,  an  objection 
based  on  his  ignorance.  It  amounts  to  this : — Mr.  Camp- 
bell's theory  of  conversion  is  inconsistent  with  some- 
thing of  which  little  or  nothing  is  known !  Mr.  Jeter 
does  not  know  in  what  the  millennium  will  consist,  and 
certainly  not  how  it  is  to  be  introduced.  In  regard  to 
the  former  point,  the  Scriptures  merely  state  the  fact 
that  there  will  be  a  millennium,  with  no  full  description 
certainly  of  what  it  will  consist  in ;  and  in  regard  to  the 
latter,  if  they  are  not  wholly  silent,  yet  are  they  silent, 
it  appears  to  us,  in  regard  to  its  being  introduced  by 
merely  moral  causes.  It  will  not  be  thought  disrespect- 
ful in  us  to  dissent  from  Mr.  Campbell  in  regard  to  a 
matter  touching  which  he  does  not  claim  to  be  exempt 


152  REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

from  liability  to  err.  Vre  cannot  therefore  agree  that 
Mr.  Jeter  has  furnished  the  true  view  of  the  millennium 
in  the  short  extract  which  he  makes  from  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's writings  to  define  what  he  means''  bj  the  term. 
And  still  less  can  we  concede  to  him  the  right  to  base 
an  objection  to  our  theory  of  conversion  on  a  piece  of 
information  which  he  does  not  happen  to  possess. 

But  it  is  proper  to  hear  Mr.  Jeter's  account  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  millennium  is  to  be  introduced. 
^^It  is/'  he  obseiweS;  ^^most  manifest  that  the  millennium 
cannot  shed  its  blessings  on  the  world  without  some 
new  agency  or  influence,  or  some  great  increase  of 
existing  influences.  "We  need  expect  no  new  revelations 
for  our  instruction,  no  new  powers  to  be  imparted  to 
the  human  mind,  and-  no  new  means  of  spreading  the 
gospel  and  enlisting  attention  to  it.  How  then  is  the 
millennium  to  be  introduced  ?  By  an  increased  efficiency 
of  the  divine  icord." 

The  millennium,  then,  is  to  shed  its  blessings  on  the 
world  by  an  increased  efficiency  of  the  divine  word,  is'ow, 
a  more  perfect  conceit  never  haunted  the  brain  of  a 
Chaldean  astrologer.  But  still,  conceit  as  it  is,  it  serves 
the  purpose  of  a  point  on  which  to  poise  an  objection 
ao-ainst  our  view  of  conversion.    Had  Mr.  Jeter  stated 

o 

that  the  millennium  is  to  be  introduced  by  magnetism 
or  submarine  telegraphs,  he  would,  for  any  thing  he 
knows,  have  come  quite  as  near  the  truth. 

Wlien  he  states  that  the  millennium  is  to  be  intro- 
duced by  an  increased  efficiency  of  the  divine  word,  he 
states  simply  the  case  of  a  miracle,  and  then  on  thia 
bases  an  objection  to  our  theory  of  conversion,  because 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  153 


it  does  not  provide  for  the  accomplishment  of  an  event 
by  ordinary  means  which,  by  his  own  showing,  is  to  result 
from  a  miraculous  cause ! 

Again,  the  objection  obviously  assumes  that  the 
millennium  is  to  be  introduced  hy  conversion.  Eut  this 
we  deny :  hence,  since  it  is  not  granted,  neither  proved, 
no  objection  can  rest  on  it.  If  Mr.  Jeter  would  make 
out  his  case,  let  him  first  show  from  the  Eible  that  the 
millennium  is  to  be  introduced  hy  conversion,  and  then, 
from  any  source,  that  our  theory  rnakes  no  provision 
therefor.  Then  we  should  have  an  objection  indeed. 
But  until  then  we  are  compelled  to  pronounce  his  pre- 
sent objection  sheer  nonsense. 


SECTION  VII. 

Objection  7.  "  The  assumption  under  consideration^* 
(that  the  Spirit  operates  in  conversion  through  the 
Truth  only)  ^Hs  incompatible  with  the  salvation  of  infants. 
They  enter  into  the  world,  as  Mr.  Camjobell  admits, 
with  depraved  hearts.  -Dying  before  they  attain  to 
years  of  intelligence,  they  must  enter  heaven  with  their 
moral  natures  unchanged,  which  is  impossible;  they 
must  be  renovated  by  death,  which  is  a  mere  figment; 
they  must  be  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  without  the 
word,  the  possibility  of  which  Mr.  Campbell  cannot 
conceive;  or  they  must  be  lost.  I  do  not  charge  him 
with  admitting  this  consequence;  but  it  appears  to  be 
logically  deduced  from  the  position  which  he  assumes, 
and  all  his  ingenuity  has  not  enabled  him  to  escape 
from  it." 


154 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.. 


As  a  general  rule,  there  is  about  as  much  connection 
betTveen  IMr.  Jeter's  premises  and  his  conclusions  as 
between  a  cubic  inch  and  the  milky  way;  but  in  the 
present  instance  he  seems  to  have  stumbled  upon  some- 
thing a  little  better.  We  do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce 
this  the  best  argument,  bad  as  it  is,  in  his  book.  For 
that  reason  we  have  transcribed  it  entire. 

How,  now,  must  not  all  mothers  be  scandalized  by 
the  naughty  doctrine  which  leads  to  such  a  conclusion ! 
And  Mr.  Campbell,  it  seems,  with  all  his  ingenuity,  is 
unable  to  escape  it.  Alas,  poor  man  !  "What  now  must 
be  done?  If  we  admit  Mr.  Jeter's  premises,  and  if  his 
argument  is  all  valid,  then  are  we  forced  to  accept  his 
conclusion.  But — alas  for  his  argument  I — a  single  pass 
at  it  proves  fatal.  Mr.  Campbell  does  not  admit  that  in- 
fants are  depraved  in  any  sense  ichich  makes  it  necessary  to 
regenerate  them,  either  with  or  without  the  word,  in  order  to 
their  salvation.  We  regret  to  be  compelled  thus  to  spoil 
the  best  argument  in  Mi\  Jeter's  book;  but  we  are  not 
permitted  to  spare  it.  When  he  puts  his  own  false  posi- 
tion in  ^Ir.  Camj^bell's  mouth,  he  must  not  expect  to 
deduce  from  it  conclusions  which  will  render  any  one 
ridiculous  but  himself. 

SECTION  viir. 

Objection  8.  "Jlfr.  Campbell's  assumption"  (the  Spirit's 
operating  through  the  Truth  only)  wholly  at  war 
with  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  Satanic  influence.  Satan  and 
other  evil  spirits  are  represented  in  the  Bible  as  exert- 
ing a  mighty  moral  influence  for  the  destruction  of  men. 
They  temj)t,  deceive,  enslave,  and  degrade  mankind. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  155 

Satan  is  a  mighty  prince,  and  at  the  head  of  a  great, 
spreading  empire.  But  ho^Y  do  the  evil  spirits  exert  an 
influence  over  the  minds  of  men?  By  arguments  oi 
motives  addressed  to  them  by  words  oral  or  written  ? 
Certainly  not :  but  by  a  direct,  internal,  and  efficient 
influence'^ 

1.  We  deny  utterly  that  Satan  exerts  any  direct  in- 
fluence on  the  human  mind.  AVe  do  not  say  he  cannot 
do  it,  for  we  know  not  the  limit  of  his  awful  power. 
We  deny  that  he  does  it.  The  question  is  a  question  of 
fact,  which  should  not  have  been  assumed,  as  it  has 
been,  but  proved,  or  not  made  the  basis  of  an  objection. 
It  is  a  sheer  fiction  invented  for  a  special  purpose. 

2.  But,  conceding  that  Satan  does  exert  a  direct  in- 
fluence on  the  mind,  what  then  ?  Why,  that  Mr.  Camp- 
bell concedes  to  him  and  his  angels  a  power  which  he 
denies  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  ^klr.  Campbell  sets  no 
limits  to  the  power  of  the  Spirit.  He  denies  that  it  does 
act  thus  and  so,  not  that  it  can.  More  than  this  he  has 
never  denied. 

But,  even  granting,  as  already  stated,  that  Satan 
does  exert  a  direct  influence  on  the  mind,  is  it  possible 
that  Mr.  Jeter  can  make  this  the  ground  of  an  argument 
as  to  what  the  Spirit  does?  Does  he  mean  to  teach, 
because  Satan  can  do  a  thing,  and  does  it  for  wicked 
ends  because  he  can,  that  we  are  therefore  to  conclude 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  the  same  thing  ?  This  is  the 
pith  of  his  argument;  and  yet  he  affects  to  be  jealous 
for  the  "honor  of  the  Holy  Spirit.^'  How  dare  he  assert, 
conceding  his  position  to  be  correct,  that  the  enormity 
of  Satan's  sin  consists  not  in  this  very  thing, — that  he 


150 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPEELLISM  EXAMINED. 


does,  because  he  can,  exert  a  direct  influence  on  the 
mind.  ?  For  aught  he  kno^YS,  this  may  make  the  great 
trenching  difference  between  the  Spirit's  intercourse 
with  man  and  Satan' s, — a  difference  Avhich  makes  the 
intercourse  of  the  latter  intensely  wicked. 

Scrappy  as  Mr.  Jeter's  book  is,  we  did  not  expect  to 
meet  this  stale  piece  in  it.  For  the  last  quarter  of  a 
century  this  argument  has  been  kept  on  hand  by  none 
but  the  lowest  class  of  3Ir.  Campbell's  opponents,  until 
now  it  turns  up  in  the  tidy  manual  of  the  Eev.  !Mr. 
Jeter. 

SECTION  IX. 

Objection  9.  ^^The  assumption  that  the  Spirit  can'' 
{does)  "operate  on  the  soul  of  man  in  conversion  only 
by  arguments  or  words,  is  not  only  unphilosophical, 
but  contrary  to  divinely-recorded  facts.  It  is  not  true 
that  physical  power  cannot  produce  a  moral  effect.  .  .  . 
Christ  was  created  holy.  ^The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come 
upon  thee/  said  the  angel  to  Mary,  ^and  the  power  of 
the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  :  therefore  that  holy 
thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the 
Son  of  God  Luke  iv.  35.  "Was  not  the  holiness  of  the 
infant  Eedeemer  a  moral  quality?  And  was  not  this 
effect  produced,  not  by  arguments,  persuasion,  or  words, 
but  by  the  power — the  physical  power — of  the  Highest?" 

The  holiness,  then,  of  the  infant  Eedeemer  was  created  : 
was  it?  Created  exactly  as  a  brad  or  an  oyster  is 
created;  created,  too,  by  the  physical  power  of  the 
Almighty!  It  was  then  a  mere  created  thing,  and 
hence,      se,  of  no  more  value  than  the  color  of  a  gooso. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPEBLLISM  EXAMINED.  157 

JSTow,  in  all  the  ranks  of  our  brethren,  where,  we  ask, 
is  the  man  ^Yho  has  ever  dared  to  utter  even  one  sen- 
tence half  so  dishonoring  to  the  divine  Savior  as  this 
worse  than  Arian  piece  ?  And  yet  the  author  of  even 
this — who  is,  too,  so  very  orthodox  withal — can  cant  of 
IVIr.  Campbell's  views  of  the  divinity  of  Christ !  AYe 
shall,  however,  do  him  the  justice  to  suppose  that  he 
would  not  again  repeat  what  he  has  here  written.  Can 
even  he  be  capable  of  the  deed  ?  It  is  certainly  a  matter 
of  wonder  that  an  ^^assumption"  which  he  deems  to  be 
so  false  should  impel  him  to  extremes  so  strange. 

SECTION  X. 

Objection  10.  "l^o  writer  has  so  bitterly  denounced 
metaphysical  speculations  and  mystic  theology  as  Mr. 
Campbell.  One  great  object  of  his  reformation  was  to 
rescue  the  Scriptures  from  the  glosses  of  sectarian 
theorizers.  I  must  say,  that  I  have  met  with  no  writer 
on  the  agenc}^  of  the  Spirit  in  conversion,  w^io  has  in- 
dulged so  much  in  metaphysical  disquisition,  labored  so 
hard  to  establish  a  theory,  or  drawn  such  momentoUs 
consequences  from  his  own  fine-spun  speculations.'' 

The  charge  that  Mr.  Campbell,  w^hile  opposing  the 
speculations  of  others,  has  himself  turned  speculatist, 
and  that  he  has  labored  to  establish  a  theory,  is  with- 
out foundation.  Indeed,  the  very  reverse  is  true.  K'o 
author  has  labored  more  to  keep  free  from  speculation, 
and  none,  perhaps,  has  succeeded  better;  and,  as  to  a 
theory  on  any  subject,  he  has  never  penned  a  line  to 
establish  one.     But  sectarians  are  a  peculiar  race. 

14 


158 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


When  ^Ir.  Campbell  neither  eats  nor  drinks,  they  say 
he  has  a  devil;  but  when  he  both  eats  and  drinks,  they 
say  he  is  a  glutton  and  a  Avine-bibber,  a  friend  of  pub- 
licans and  sinners.  When  ^Mr.  Campbell,  refuses  to 
speculate  on  the  ageucy  of  the  Spirit  in  conversion, 
they  declare  he  denies  that  agency ;  but  when,  to  please 
them,  he  consents  to  explain,  then  they  clamor, — A 
speculatist !  Truly,  his  taskmasters  put  him  to  a  hard 
service.  Mr.  Campbell  asserts  that  conviction  is  the 
work  of  the  Spirit,  and  here  would  pause.  But  he  is 
soon  hurried  from  this  position.  He  next  asserts  that 
sinners  are  quickened  by  the  Truth;  but  this  is  unsatis- 
factory. He  then  explains;  and  now  he  is  either  a 
metaphysician  or  theorist.  It  is  well  that  wisdom  is 
justified  by  her  children. 

If  there  is  any  one  singular  trait  in  the  teachings 
of  Mr.  Campbell, — and  the  same  is  true  of  the  teach- 
ings of  his  brethren, — it  is  their  simplicity  and  freeness 
from  speculation.  The  facility  with  which  audiences 
understand  him,  the  delight  with  which  the  unbigoted 
listen  to  his  clear,  fine  thoughts,  the  readiness  with 
which  they  accept  his  expositions  of  Scripture, — at  once 
so  fair  and  natural, — is  the  best  refutation  of  the  charge 
that  he  is  either  a  speculatist  or  a  theorist.  It  is,  how- 
ever, not  at  all  strange  that  Mr.  Jeter,  whose  mind  is  a 
mere  tissue  of  flimsy  speculations,  should,  feeling  him- 
self rebuked  in  the  presence  of  a  man  free  from  specu- 
lation, seek  to  implicate  him  in  his  own  follies.  Oblique 
talkers  generally  excuse  their  deeds  by  saying  that 
other  people  do  not  always  speak  the  truth. 

Here,  now,  we  close  our  examination  of  what  ]VIr. 


REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  159 

Jeter  has  to  urge  in  the  way  of  objections  to  our  view 
of  spiritual  agency  and  influence  in  conversion.  And 
are  these  all?  If  so,  till  heaven  and  earth  shall  pass 
away  will  that  view  stand.  We  never  felt  more  pro- 
foundly penetrated  with  the  conviction  of  its  truth 
than  now.  These  feeble  objections  have  melted  at  its 
base  like  snow  at  the  foot  of  the  Andes,  and  still  it 
stands.  Mists  may  gather  around  it  and  objections  lie 
on  its  outskirts ;  but  still  it  towers  far  up  into  a  region 
where  mists  never  gather  and  objections  never  collect. 
Its  lustre  may  be  obscured  for  a  day ;  but,  like  the  sun 
marching  behind  a  pavilion  of  cloud,  it  will  gleam 
forth  at  last  all  the  brighter  for  the  transient  obscurity. 
We  commend  it,  therefore,  to  the  confidence  of  all  good 
men,  and  commit  it  to  the  safe-keeping  of  Grod. 


160  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


CHAPTEE  Y. 

"THE  IDENTITY  OF  REGENERATION,  CONVERSION,  AND  BAPTISM." 

SECTION  1. 

Such  is  Mr.  Jeter's  caption  to  some  twenty-five  pages 
of  matter  curious  and  emj^irical  indeed.  Here  his  pecu- 
liar genius  displays  itself  to  admiration.  He  sports 
like  a  giant  with  phantoms  of  his  own  creating,  and 
plays  with  the  freedom  of  a  boy  with  Mr.  Campbell's 
views,  so  obscure,  variable,  and  contradictory."  His 
great  argument,  in  the  mastery  of  which  not  even  the 
infidel  himself  shall  dispute  the  palm  with  Mr.  Jeter, 
is  here  employed  with  its  finest  etFect.  Truth  and  false- 
hood, vice  and  virtue,  is  and  is  not,  are  not  more  con- 
tradictory than  the  views  of  ]Mr.  Campbell !  This  has 
been  for  ages  past,  and  still  is,  the  chief  ground  on  which 
the  infidel  has  disputed  the  truth  of  Christianity.  The 
Bible,  he  affirms,  is  contradictory,  therefore  it  is  false. 
And  Mr.  Campbell's  views  are  contradictory,  affirms 
Mi\  Jeter,  and  hence  must  be  false.  "With  a  single  dis- 
tinction the  analogy  is  complete  : — the  infidel  may  err, 
but  not  so  !Mr.  Jeter !  Of  all  the  arguments  which  can 
be  urged  against  any  cause,  this,  we  believe,  is,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  best  judges,  deemed  the  feeblest. 
And  yet  extract  this  argument,  together  with  all  that 
rests  on  it,  from  Mr.  Jeter's  book,  and  the  shrunken 
thing  will  resemble  nothing  so  much  as  an  Egyptian 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  161 


mummy.  Of  these  feigned  contradictions  we  shall  take 
no  notice. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  main  subject  of  this  chapter, 
we  have  first  a  few  extracts  to  present  from  what  Mr. 
Jeter  has  written  under  the  preceding  caption,  on  which 
a  few  remarks  may  be  offered,  in  order  to  abbreviate 
our  future  labors  and  to  correct  some  errors  into  which 
he — ^most  innocently,  no  doubt — has  fallen. 

I.  "  I  do  not  charge  ]Mr.  Campbell  with  denying  the 
necessity  of  a  moral  change  preparatory  to  baptism. 
He  has  written  equivocally — ^perhaps  it  would  be  better 
to  say  obscurely — on  the  subject.  His  love  of  novelty, 
the  immaturity  of  his  views,  or  the  blinding  influence 
of  his  theory,  or  all  these  causes  combined,  have  im- 
pelled him  to  record  many  sentences  which  ingenuity 
less  pregnant  than  his  own  finds  it  difiicult  to  reconcile 
with  my  admission.'^ 

We  regret  that  we  cannot  be  obliged  to  Mr.  Jeter  for 
his  admission."  Had  it  been  made  for  Mr.  Campbell's 
sake,  we  might  have  been  so;  but  such  was  not  the 
case.  It  was  made,  not  to  do  Mr.  Campbell  justice,  but 
to  avoid  a  somewhat  less  sore  event  to  Mr.  Jeter  him- 
self,— that  of  being  convicted  of  wilful  falsehood.  He 
knew  that  the  most  partial  and  superficial  reader  of  Mr. 
Campbell's  writings  could  contradict  him  without  this 
admission ;  hence,  he  made  it  to  save  himself, — ^for  no- 
thing else. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  ^^has  written  equivocally — perhaps 

it  would  be  better  to  say  obscurely — on  the  necessity  of  a 

moral  change  before  baptism." 

Candidly,  we  are  grieved  at  this.    We  are  willing  to 
u*  L 


162 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


review  Mr.  Jeter  severely, — nay,  even  bitterly,  jf^hen  he 
merits  it,  as  he  not  seldom  does, — hut  neither  unjustly 
nor  discourteously.  But  how,  within  any  of  these  limits, 
to  describe  what  he  has  here  said,  without  the  appear- 
ance of  being  rude,  we  confess  we  know  not.  It  is  to 
be  regretted  that  an  author  whose  pedigree  points  to  an 
American  origin  should  still  by  his  speech  so  often  be- 
tray a  Cretan  extraction. 

In  writing  near  half  a  hundred  volumes  and  thousands 
of  pages,  it  would  surely  be  a  miracle  had  Mr.  Campbell 
never  penned  an  obscure  or  equivocal  sentence.  JBut  is 
an  equivocal  or  obscure  sentence  here  and  there  only,  a 
just  ground  on  which  to  prefer  a  charge  of  writing 
equivocally  or  obscurely  on  a  point  which  lies  nearest 
the  writer's  heart?  Are  all  Mr.  Campbell's  writings 
equivocal  or  obscure  on  the  necessity  of  a  moral  change 
before  baptism  ?  Alas  for  the  weakness  and  corruption 
of  the  human  heart !  If,  it  may  truly  be  said,  there  is 
any  one  subject  on  which  !Mr.  Campbell  has  shed  the 
whole  splendor  of  his  j^eculiar  eloquence,  it  is  the  neces- 
sity— the  absolute  necessity — of  a  change,  a  moral  change, 
a  spiritual  change,  a  deep,  vital,  pervading  change  of  the 
whole  inner  man,  preparatory  to  baptism.  Of  all  the  sub- 
jects on  which  he  has  ever  'svritten,  this  appears  to 
be  that  on  which  he  is  most  sensitive,  most  cautious. 
He  has  described  it  and  insisted  on  the  necessity  of  it 
times  innumerable,  and  in  a  style  the  most  varied, 
pointed,  and  luminous.  Who,  then,  we  ask,  that  is  un- 
willing to  be  recreant  to  the  truth,  can  charge  him  with 
writing  either  equivocally  or  obscurely  on  the  subject  ? 
Is  there  no  moral  change  implied  in  belief?  none  in  re- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  163 


pentence  ?  and  does  not  Mr.  Campbell  insist  that  these 
shall  precede  baptism?  On  some  subjects  we  may  brook 
a  charge  which  is  both  false  and  injurious  to  ns  as  a 
people;  but  Mr.  Jeter  must  learn  that  this  subject  is  not 
one  of  them. 

II.  ''Mr.  Campbell  has  been  frequently,  but,  I  think, 
unfairly,  charged  with  teaching  baptismal  regeneration. 
As  popularly  understood,  baptismal  regeneration  de- 
notes a  moral  change  effected  through  the  influence  of 
Christian  baptism.  Some  things  which  Mr.  Campbell 
has  written,  as  we  have  seen,  seem  to  imply  this  doc- 
trine ;  and  he  has  exposed  himself  to  the  suspicion  of 
holding  it  by  quoting  its  advocates  in  support  of  his 
peculiar  views :  but  certainly  he  has  never  formally 
proclaimed  it ;  he  earnestly  advocates  principles  at  war 
with  it.  What  he  certainly  maintains  is,  not  that  we  are 
regenerated  by  baptism,  but  that  baptism  is  itself  regenera- 
tion, and  the  only  personal  regeneration." 

We  presume  that  Mr.  Jeter  has,  in  this  extract,  come 
as  near  doing  Mr.  Campbell  justice  as  he  has  ever  come 
doing  any  opponent  justice;  and  he  is  far  from  doing 
him  justice.  He  certainly,  however,  does  Mr.  Campbell 
the  justice  to  acquit  him  of  holding  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  for  which  we  thank  him  sincerely 
and  heartily.  Baptismal  regeneration,  as  he  justly  states, 
denotes,  as  popularly  understood,  a  moral  change — i.e.  a 
change  of  the  inner  man — effected  by  baptism.  This  doc- 
trine Mr.  Campbell  eschews  from  his  whole  heart.  He 
has  never  penned  even  one  sentence  which,  except  by 
the  most  dishonest  artifice,  can  be  shown  even  to  look 
towards  the  doctrine.    He  ascribes  to  baptism  no  value 


164  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

whatever  except  as  a  condition  of  remission,  or  (which 
is  hardly  a  different  thing)  as  a  part  of  the  new  birth ; 
but  neither  as  a  condition  of  remission  nor  as  a  part  of 
the  new  birth  does  he  ascribe  to  it  any  moral  effect  on 
the  heart  or  the  souL  Even  as  a  part  of  the  new  birth 
it  is  a  part  to  which  no  moral  effect  {effect  on  the  inner 
man)  can  be  ascribed.  Indeed,  all  that  is  moral,  strictly 
so  called,  in  the  new  birth,  precedes  baptism,  and  neces- 
sarily so.  True,  as  a  condition  of  remission  or  as  a  part 
of  the  new  birth,  !Mr.  Campbell  ascribes  to  baptism  an 
immense  value ;  but  the  value  which  he  ascribes  to  it 
consists  in  no  power  which  it  has  to  produce  any  moral 
effect  or  change  in  the  heart  or  the  soul,  bat  solely  in 
its  being  appointed,  jointly  with  other  conditions,  for 
remission. 

But,  while  acquitting  Mr.  Campbell  of  holding,  or 
rather  teaching,  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration, 
Mr.  Jeter  had  still  to  do  so  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave 
the  mind  half  suspicious  that  he  may  still  be  tinctured 
with  the  doctrine.  Some  things  [we  repeat  what  he 
says]  which  Mr.  Campbell  has  written,  as  we  have 
seen,  seem  to  imply  this  doctrine;  and  he  has  exposed  him- 
self to  the  suspicion  of  holding  it,  by  quoting  its  advocates 
in  support  of  his  peculiar  views.^'  This  is  not  manly. 
Why,  if  Mr.  Jeter  really  wished  to  acquit  Islr.  Campbell 
of  the  charge  fully,  did  he  not  do  it  like  a  man,  in  one 
clear,  broad  sentence,  unaccompanied  by  any  suspicion- 
breeding  qualifications?  He  acquits  him  because  he 
knows  him  to  be  not  guilty,  and  yet  in  such  a  way  as 
to  leave  the  impression  that  after  all  he  may  not  bo 
.  quite  innocent. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  165 

But  ''what  he  pir.  Campbell]  dearly  maintains  is,  not 
that  we  are  regenerated  by  baptism,  but  that  baptism  is  itself 
regeneration,  and  the  only  personal  regeneration.'' 

What  Mr.  Campbell  clearly  maintains  is, — 1st,  that 
regeneration  and  the  new  birth  are  identical;  2d,  that 
the  new  birth  consists  of  two  parts, — to  wit:  being  be- 
gotten, or  quickened,  by  the  Spirit,  and  being  baptized; 
and  3d,  that,  therefore,  baptism  is  not"  itself  regenera- 
tion, i.e.  the  whole  of  it.  But  because  baptism,  as  a 
part,  and  especially  as  the  last  part,  of  regeneration, 
implies  the  other  and  preceding  part,  Mr.  Campbell 
sometimes  calls  it  regeneration,  precisely  as  faith  some- 
times stands  for  the  whole  gospel,  in  which,  howevei,  it 
is  merely  a  single  item.  In  this  sense,  but  in  no  other, 
does  he  maintain  that  baptism  is  itself  regeneration. 

III.  As  quoted  by  Mr.  Jeter,  Mr.  Campbell  thus 
writes: — ^^The  sprinkling  of  a  speechless  and  faithless 
babe  never  moved  it  one  inch  in  the  way  to  heaven,  and 
never  did  change  its  heart,  character,  or  relation  to  God 
and  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  not  so  a  believer,  im- 
mersed as  a  volunteer  in  obedience  of  the  gospel.  He 
has  put  on  Christ.'^  On  which  Mr.  Jeter  comments 
thus: — ^'The  sprinkling  of  a  speechless  and  faithless 
babe  never  did  change  its  heart;  but  what  is  true  of  the 
sprinkling  of  an  infant  is  not  true  of  the  voluntary  im- 
mersion of  a  believer.  So  ^Mr.  Campbell  seems  to 
teach.'' 

Plainly,  Mr.  Jeter  means  to  say,  that  Mr.  Campbell 
seems  to  teach  that  immersion  changes  the  believefs  heart. 
Did  not  his  conscience  smite  him  while  penning  this  ? 
If  not,  he  ne^d  never  fear  it  in  time  to  come  while  sin- 


166  REVIEW  OF  CxVMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


ning.  He  may  console  himself  with  the  reflection  that 
he  enjoys  immunity  from  the  punishment  of  at  least  one 
great  foe  to  injustice  and  crime.  But  to  an  upright 
mind  ^Ir.  Campbell  seems  to  teach  no  such  doctrine  as 
Mr.  Jeter  ascribes  to  him.  Mr.  Campbell  certainly  means 
to  teach  that  there  is  a  distinction  between  the  sprinkling 
of  an  infant  and  the  immersion  of  a  believer.  But  what 
is  it  ?  Has  he  merely  implied  it  and  left  it  to  be  in- 
ferred ?  No.  He  distinctly  expresses  it.  His  language 
is,  not  so  a  believer,  immersed  as  a  volunteer  in  obe- 
dience of  the  gospel.  He  has  put  on  Christ.^'  Sprink- 
ling the  babe  does  it  no  good,  but  not  so  the  immersion 
of  «ne  believer.  By  it  he  puts  on  Christ.  This  is  the  dis- 
tinction, and  the  only  one,  which  Mr.  Campbell  even 
seems  to  teach,  except  by  a  construction  which  converts 
truth  into  falsehood,  and  against  which  the  imperfections 
of  human  speech  afford  no  protection. 


SECTION  II. 

But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  terms  Regeneration 
and  Conversion,  and  to  what  extent,  or  in  what  sense,  if 
any,  are  they  identical  with  baptism  ?  To  this  question 
the  present  is  not  the  place  to  reply  fully.  This  can  be 
better  done  in  the  chapter  on  remission  of  sins.  In- 
deed, after  what  has  now  been  said,  neither  a  very  full 
nor  a  very  formal  reply  can  be  deemed  necessary.  For 
the  present,  therefore,  we  shall  be  content  with  sub- 
mitting merely  such  distinctions  and  other  considera- 
tions as  the  nature  of  the  case  seems  here  to  require  aad 
as  can  with  propriety  be  now  introduced. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  167 

As  we  promised  in  a  preceding  chapter  to  assign  the 
reasons  elsewhere  for  there  substituting  the  term  "be- 
gotten'' for  the  term  "born/'  we  shall  noAv  commence 
by  inquiring  what  is  the  only  true  and  proper  rendering 
of  the  original  word  rendered  "born"  in  the  phrase 
"  born  of  God.''  Cei-tainly  it  is  to  be  rendered  either 
by  the  term  "begotten"  or  "born,"  but  the  question  is, 
by  which?  Mr.  Jeter  thinks  it  may  be  rendered  in- 
differently by  either,  according  to  the  taste  of  the  trans- 
lator.   But  in  this  he  is  unquestionably  wrong. 

The  principle  which,  in  translating,  takes  precedence 
of  all  others,  where  it  can  be  applied,  is  this : — where  a 
doubt  exists  as  to  what  English  word  we  are  to  translate 
a  term  in  the  original  by,  select  a  case  in  which  no  doubt 
can  exist,  and  render  by  the  proper  word;  then,  in  every 
other  case  where  this  same  original  word  occurs,  render 
by  this  same  English  word,  unless  the  sense  forbids  it. 
This  is  perhaps  the  most  important  rule  known  to  the 
science  of  interpretation,  and,  happily  for  the  present 
question,  applies,  and  consequently  settles  it  forever. 

"Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is  born 
of  God."  [N'ow,  the  question  is,  shall  the  word  born  be 
here  retained,  or  shall  it  give  place  to  the  word  begotten  ? 
In  order  to  settle  this  question,  the  rule  requires  that 
we  shall  find  a  case  in  which  this  same  original  word 
occurs,  but  in  which  no  doubt  can  exist  as  to  what 
English  word  it  is  to  be  translated  by.  Let  us  then  try 
the  next  clause : — "and  every  one  that  loveth  him  that — 
begat."  Here  it  is  impossible  to  employ  the  word  born; 
and  equally  impossible  to  employ  any  other  word  but 
the  word  begat.    This,  then,  is  a  case  in  which  no  doubt 


168 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


can  exist.  Hence,  in  every  case  where  this  same  origi- 
nal word  occurs,  it  is  to  be  rendered  by  begat  or  begotten, 
unless  the  sense  forbids  it.  Let  us  now,  using  this  term, 
render,  according  to  the  rule,  the  entire  verse  from 
which  these  clauses  are  taken.  Whosoever  believeth 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is  begotten  of  God;  and  every 
one  that  loveth  him  that  begat  loveth  him  also  that  is 
begotten  of  him.  Here,  now,  by  the  force  of  the  rule, 
we  produce  a  rendering  which  is  not  only  correct  but 
uniform, — a  circumstance  constantly  aimed  at  in  every 
good  translation. 

It  may  now  be  pro2:)er  to  cite  a  passage  or  two  in 
which,  although  the  same  original  word  occurs,  neither 
begat  nor  begotten  can  be  used,  because  the  sense  forbids 
it.  1.  ''By  foith,  Moses  when  he  was  born  was  hid  three 
months  of  his  parents,  because  they  saw  he  was  a  proper 
child."  Here  it  is  obvious  at  a  glance  that  the  term 
begotten  cannot  be  used.  2.  "Except  a  man  be  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Sj^irit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God."  Here  again  the  sense  requires  bor7i; 
because  to  say  except  a  man  be  begotten  of  water,  is 
nonsense. 

For  these  reasons  we  ventured  to  substitute  the  term 
begotten  for  the  term  born,  in  John  iii.  8,  thus: — The 
Spirit  breathes  where  it  sees  fit,  and  you  hear  its  voice; 
but  you  know  not  whence  it  comes  and  whither  it  goes: 
in  this  way  is  (begotten)  every  one  that  is  begotten  by 
the  Spirit. 

But  in  reply  to  this  it  may  be  asked,  why  not  make  a 
passage  in  which  the  original  word  has  to  be  rendered 
born,  as  in  the  two  last  instances,  the  basis  ol  oui-  criti- 


EE  VIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  169 

cism,  and  compel  the  other  passages  to  conform  to  it? 
TVe  answer,  where  a  term  is  used  in  two  senses,  a 
wider  and  a  narrower,  as  is  the  case  with  the  term  now 
in  hand,  the  rule  applies  to  the  term  first  in  its  narrower 
sense;  since  it  is  of  necessity  that  the  term  must  have  its 
narrower  sense,  though  not  that  it  shall  have  its  wider. 
It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  horn  is  a  term  of  wider 
Bignification  than  hegat.  For  this  reason,  therefore,  the 
rule  must  be  applied  as  in  the  preceding  instances. 

But  now  comes  the  great  material  question.  Does  the 
phrase  begotten  by  the  Spirit  or  begotten  of  God — for  they 
are  identical  in  sense — express  the  whole  of  the  new  birth  ? 
In  other  words,  does  the  new  birth  consist  in  being  begotten 
by  the  Spirit,  and  in  nothing  else,  even  in  part  ?  Mr.  Jeter 
affirms  that  it  does :  we  deny  it.  This  constitutes  the 
difference  between  us. 

The  new  birth  consists  in  being  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spijit.  At  least,  so  taught  the  Savior: — ''Except  a  man 
be  born  of  icater  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God."  That  to  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit  is  to  be  ,bom  again,  no  honest  man  acquainted 
with  the  subject  ever  yet  denied.  And  this  is  regenera- 
tion. Hence,  regeneration  consists  not  in  being  born  of 
water  alone,  nor  yet  in  being  begotten  by  the  Sp'.it 
alone,  but  in  the  two  jointly  and  inseparably, — is  com- 
plete in  neither,  but  only  in  them  both.  This  is  the 
doctrine  for  which  we  contend. 

In  the  order  of  events,  it  is  true,  being  begotten  by 
the  Spirit  precedes  being  born  of  water,  and  never  suc- 
ceeds it.  As  that  does  not  complete  the  new  birth  with- 
out this,  so  this  without  that  is  nothing. 

15 


I 

170  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

So  far,  then,  as  regeneration  consists  in  being  born  of 
water,  so  far  it  and  baptism  are  identical;  no  further.  So 
much,  then,  for  the  identity  of  regeneration  and  baptism. 

SECTION  III. 

Next  in  regard  to  the  word  conversion.  All  we  have 
to  say  on  this  term  shall  consist  in  a  few  remarks  on 
the  following  passages: — 1.  ''Wherefore  my  sentence  is, 
that  ye  trouble  not  them  who  from  among  the  Gentiles 
are  turned  to  God.''  The  word  here  rendered  ''are 
turned"  is  the  word  which  in  other  places  is  rendered 
convert,  conversion,  &c.  It  was  here  applied  to  the  first 
Gentile  converts  to  Christianity,  and  comprehended  all 
that  made  the  difference  between  the  alien  and  the  bap- 
tized person,  and  hence,  of  course,  baptism  itself  Since, 
therefore,  it  applied  to  the  whole  of  a  process  of  which 
baptism  is  a  part,  conversion  and  baptism  must,  to  a 
certain  extent  at  least,  be  identical.  Now,  the  question 
is,  to  what  extent?  Or,  putting  the  question  in  another 
form.  Did  the  word  conversion  apply  equally  to  all  part? 
of  the  process  of  which  baptism  is  a  part,  or  is  there  not 
evidence  that  it  applied  more  particularly  to  one  part 
than  to  any  other,  and,  if  so,  to  which  part  ? 

In  order  to  answer  this  question,  we  shall  now  present 
the  second  passage,  to  wit: — ''Repent  ye,  therefore,  and 
be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out."  Now, 
we  shall  assume  that  the  persons  here  addressed  were 
believers, — a  thing  which  need  not  be  done,  since  Mr. 
Jeter  concedes  it.  The  following  is  his  language, 
or,  rather,  view  of  the  passage: — "'Eepent,'  said  he, 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  171 

(Peter,)  change  your  minds,  ^and  be  converted,  reform 
your  lives,  (and  these  exercises  clearly  imply  faith,)  Hhat 
your  sins  may  be  blotted  out/ 

The  word  conversion,  then,  did  not,  in  this  case,  denote 
belief,  since  it  was  believers  who  were  commanded  to  be 
converted.  Neither  did  it  denote  repentance,  since  this 
is  denoted  by  the  appropriate  term.  What,  then,  did  it 
denote?  After  belief  and  repentance,  what  remains? 
Baptism  only.  Baptism,  then,  we  conclude,  was  that  part 
of  the  whole  process  of  turning  to  God,  which  the  word 
conversion  more  especially  applied  to;  hence  to  this 
extent,  and  in  this  sense,  but  in  no  other,  conversion 
and  baptism  are  identical. 

This,  however,  we  wish  distinctly  to  state,  is  a  point 
upon  which  we,  as  a  people,  have  never  laid  the  slight- 
est stress.  Seldom,  in  a  long  career,  has  Mr.  Campbell 
mentioned  it;  and  then  never  to  insist  on  it  as  a  matter 
of  half  the  moment  his  enemies  represent  it  as  being. 
And,  considering  the  offence  it  has  given  to  certain  weak- 
minded  people,  it  would,  perhaps,  have  been  better  had 
it  never  been  mentioned  at  all. 


172 


EEVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  YI. 

"PKAYER  SOT  A  DUTY  OF  THE  UXBAPTIZED." 

SECTION  I. 

Under  this  head  Mr.  Jeter  devotes  some  five  j)ages  of 
his  book  to  what  he  conceives  a  "serious  error''  of 
ALr.  Campbell  and  his  brethren;  and,  although  not  a 
"chief"  nor  yet  a  "prominent"  item,  still,  he  thinks  it 
"not  an  unimportant"  one.  He  seems  anxious  to  create 
the  impression  that  we  have  either  changed  our  views 
respecting  it,  or  abandoned  those  we  formerly  held 
altogether.  His  language  is: — "This  was  an  article  of 
the  primitive  Campbellism,  often  and  variously  ex- 
pressed. It  has  not,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  been  re- 
peated in  the  later  writings  of  ]\Ir.  Campbell,  nor  has  it 
been  repudiated."  Again: — "I  do  not  know  that  Mr. 
Campbell  would  now  maintain,  or  that  any  of  the  re- 
formers now  embrace,  the  doctrine  clearly  inculcated  in 
the  above  extract;  but  I  must,  in  justice  to  the  system 
under  examination,  briefly  expose  its  follacy." 

Not  only  in  regard  to  the  item  now  in  hand,  but  in 
regard  to  our  views  generally,  Mr.  Jeter  labors  through- 
out his  book  to  make  it  appear  that,  if  we  have  not,  as 
a  people,  wholly  abandoned  some  of  them,  we  have  at 
least  materially  changed  them.  Indeed,  according  to 
him,  no  man  would  seem  to  be  so  fickle  as  Mr.  Campbell, 
and  no  people  so  fickle  as  his  brethren.    That  we  have 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


173 


changed  in  a  sense,  as  a  people,  we  are  proud  to  acknow- 
ledge. We  have  grown  wiser  and  better  and  stronger;  but 
not  even  the  semblance  of  a  change  in  any  other  sense 
do  we  admit.  And,  instead  of  abandoning  any  views 
heretofore  held,  every  year  serves  only  to  deepen  our 
conviction  of  their  truth  and  to  cause  us  to  cherish 
them  with  a  more  unwavering  faith.  We  took  our 
earlier,  as  w^e  have  taken  our  later,  lessons  from  the 
Bible,  and  as  yet  have  seen  no  reason  either  to  alter  or 
abandon  them.  We  therefore  plead  not  guilty  to  the 
charge  of  changing, — not  even  in  regard  to  the  preceding 
item. 

We  assert  now,  as  we  have  ever  done,  that  there  is 
not  one  passage  in  the  Bible  which,  during  the  reign  of 
Christ,  makes  it  the  duty  of  an  unbaptized  person  to 
pray.  Mr.  Jeter  is  greatly  mistaken  if  he  supposes  that 
we  cherish  not  this  as  a  capital  item.  We  do  not  say 
the  sinner  may  not  pray;  and,  when  he  does  pray,  we 
do  not  say  it  is  wrong.  Let  us  be  understood.  We  do 
say,  with  singular  emphasis,  that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  the 
sinner,  the  unbaptized,  to  pray  for  the  remission  of  his 
sins;  that  it  is  not  made  his  duty  to  do  so  by  the  Bible, — 
not  even  by  implication.  It  is  against  this  practice,  or 
rather  fiction,  that  our  objection  is  especially  pointed. 

The  sinner  is  taught  by  orthodox  j^reachers — blind 
guides  in  this  case,  certainly — to  pray  for  the  remission 
of  his  sins;  nay,  more,  that  God  will  give  him  a  feeling 
sense  of  remission  when  it  occurs.  Accordingly,  with  a 
broken  heart  and  a  subdued  spirit,  day  after  day,  week 
after  week,  and  often  year  after  year,  in  blind — but,  it  is 
to  be  hoped,  innocent — neglect  of  his  real  duties,  he  re- 

15* 


1:4 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


peats  the  same  fruitless  prayer.  And  pray  he  may;  but, 
unless  the  Savior  contravene  the  laws  of  his  kingdom, 
to  accept,  in  a  moment  of  awful  extremity,  the  will  for 
the  deed  of  the  sincere  but  deluded  sinner,  into  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Lord  he  may  come,  but  it  will  not  be,  we 
have  many  a  fear,  to  remain.  The  sinner's  agony  of 
mind  and  soul  during  this  time,  though  it  may  stop 
short  of  lunacy  or  suicide,  as  fortunately  in  most  cases 
it  does,  is  always  most  intense  and  bitter.  The  wail  we 
have  heard  from  his  heart,  his  indescribable  look  of  de- 
spair, his  shriek  and  smothered  groan,  strangely  mingling 
with  the  flippant  and,  in  too  many  instances,  irreverent 
cant  of  the  preacher,  ^^Pray  on,  brother:  tht2  Lord  will  yet 
have  mercy  on  your  soul,''  have  never  failed,  while  they 
have  pierced  us  with  inexpressible  grief,  to  create  in  our 
mind  the  most  painful  apprehensions  as  to  the  fate  of 
those  who  cherish  and  teach  the  doctrine.  Of  all  the 
gross  and  fatal  delusions  of  Protestants,  there  are  few 
we  can  deem  worse  than  this.  It  is  a  shame  to  the 
Baptist  denomination — of  which  we  can  truly  say, 
"With  all  thy  faults,  I  love  thee  still"— that  it  should 
hold  and  teach  this  error.  Were  the  sinner,  in  a  mo- 
ment of  deep  distress,  to  pray  the  Lord  to  forgive  his 
sins,  we  could  not  find  it  in  our  heart  to  chide  him 
for  the  deed;  but  we  should  certainly  endeavor  to  teach 
him  the  way  of  the  Lord  more  perfectly.  But  one 
thing  we  should  never  do : — teach  him  what  the  Bible 
does  not  teach  him, — to  expect  the  remission  of  his  sins 
merely  because  he  prayed  for  it.  AVhy  pray  for  a  bless- 
ing which  our  heavenly  Father  has  never  promised  to 
confer  in  this  way  or  for  this  reason,  but  which  he 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


175 


certainly  does  confer  in  another  way  and  for  a  different 
reason  ?  Where  is  the  advantage  of  the  prayer  unless 
the  Lord  has  promised  to  heed  it  ? 

AYe  shall  now  present  an  extract  from  Mr.  Jeter's 
book,  containing  a  general  summary  of  his  faith  on  the 
present  subject.  Prayer/'  he  remarks,  ''has  been  the 
duty  of  man  under  every  dispensation  of  rehgion.  The 
obligation  to  this  service  springs  from  the  relation 
between  the  infinitely-merciful  God,  and  fallen,  guilt}^, 
and  dependent  man  in  a  probationary  state.  It  is  an 
essential  element  in  true  piety.  It  is  the  very  breath 
of  spiritual  life, — a  life  which,  I  have  already  shown,  does 
not  depend  on  the  act  of  immersion,  but,  in  the  evan- 
gelical order  of  things,  precedes  that  act.  It  implies 
repentance,  faith,  and  scriptural  regeneration.  Ko  man 
can  pray  acceptably  to  God  without  renouncing  his  sins, 
believing  in  Christ,  and  having  a  new  heart.  And  no 
man  was  ever  a  proper  subject  for  Christian  baptism  who 
had  not  been  taught  to  pray  sincerely  and  fervently.'" 

It  would  be  difficult  to  produce,  even  from  this  most 
confused  of  books,  a  paragraph  indicative  of  greater 
confusion  of  mind  than  we  here  have.  Some  thino-s 
which  it  contains  are  true;  but  more  than  half  is  false. 
But  we  shall  be  confined  to  a  few  particulars  : — 

1.  ''Prayer  has  been  the  duty  of  man  under  every 
dispensation  of  religion.'' 

This  is  what  is  termed,  in  logical  language,  begging 
the  question  The  very  point  in  dispute  is,  whether  it  is 
the  duty  of  man  —  i.e.  all  men,  sinners  and  saints  —  to 
pray  under  the  reign  of  Christ.  This  is  the  very  thing 
which  we  deny,  and  which  Mr.  Jeter,  finding  himself 


176 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


unable  to  prove^  quietly  assumes.  It  has  certainly 
always  been  the  duty  of  7ne)i  to  pray;  but  then 
comes  the  question,  AVhat  men  ?  When  he  says  all, 
this  is  a  petitio,  and  not  a  meeting  of  the  point  in 
dispute. 

2.  "The  obligation  to  this  service  springs  from  the 
relation  between  the  infinitely-merciful  God,  and  fallen, 
guilty,  and  dependent  man  in  a  probationary  state." 

It  is  unquestionably  true  that  relation  gives  rise  to 
obligation ;  but  what  specific  duties  a  relation  obliges  us 
to  perform,  we  learn,  not  from  the  relation  itself,  but 
from  the  laws  which  enact  them.  Eelation  creates  obli- 
gation, but  law  defines  it.  Hence,  although  our  relation 
to  our  heavenly  Father  ma}^  oblige  us,  as  it  certainly 
and  justly  does,  jei  in  what  precise  respect,  or  to  what 
specific  duty,  we  learn  not  from  the  relation  itself,  but 
from  the  law  which  defines  the  respect  or  enacts  the 
duty.  The  same  relation  which  obliges  us  to  pray 
would  equally  oblige  us  to  believe  and  repent ;  and  yet 
we  learn  that  these  are  duties,  not  from  the  relation, 
but  from  the  precepts  which  enact  them.  In  precisely 
the  same  way  must  we  learn  the  duty  of  the  sinner, — 
i.e.  not  from  the  relation  which  he  sustains  to  our 
heavenly  Father,  and  which  obliges  him,  but  from  the 
law  which  defines  in  what  resj^ect  he  is  obliged,  or 
to  what  duty.  Consequently,  since  there  is  7io  law 
(yre  state  it  with  emphasis)  defining  the  sinner  to  be 
obliged  to  pray  for  the  remission  of  his  sins,  we  hence  con- 
clude that  this  is  not  his  duty  and  therefore  will  avail 
him  nothing. 

3.  "And  no  man  was  ever  a  proper  subject  for  Chris- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED, 


17? 


tian  baptism  who  had  not  been  taught  to  pray  sincerely 
and  fervently.'' 

This  is  merely  the  bald  assertion  of  Mr.  Jete7.  That 
he  has  a  strong  persuasion  of  its  truth  we  shall  not 
deny ;  but  had  he  imbibed  his  religious  convictions  from 
the  Bible,  and  not  from  tradition,  it  is  something  he 
would  never  have  uttered.  It  is  difficult  for  a  man  who 
has  been  long  steeped  in  error  to  persuade  himself  that 
his  errors  are  not  divine;  hen^-e  the  boldness  with 
which  Mr.  Jeter  asserts  the  truth  of  his. 

SECTION  II. 

But  it  is  now  proper  to  present  Mr.  Jeter's  delenv^e 
of  his  doctrine.  ''What/'  he  inquires,  ''say  the  Scrip- 
tures on  this  point? — 'And  Jesus  spake  a  parable  unto 
them,  [the  disciples,]  to  this  end,  that  men  ought  always 
to  pray  and  not  to  faint.' "  On  which  he  comments 
thus: — "Christ  taught  that  men  —  not  baptized  men 
merely,  but  men,  irrespective  of  their  character,  rela- 
tions, or  professions — all  men — ought,  are  under  obliga- 
tion, to  pray." 

Now,  waiving  all  dispute  as  to  the  relevancy  of  this 
parable  to  the  real  question  at  issue,  we  shall  cheer- 
fully concede  that  it  teaches  that  men  ought  to  pray; 
but  the  question  is,  What  men  ?  Does  it  teach  that  all 
men  ought  to  pray,  or  only  the  disciples,  or  persons 
named  b}^  the  Savior  in  the  conclusion  he  draws  from 
the  parable  ?  The  former  is  Mr.  Jeter's  position,  the 
latter  ours.  The  whole  parable  and  the  conclusion  are 
as  follows : — 

M 


178 


REN'IEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


^^And  he  [Christ]  spake  a  parable  unto  them,  [the 
disciples,]  to  this  end,  that  men  ought  always  to  joray 
and  not  to  faint;  saying,  There  was  in  a  city  a  judge 
which  feared  not  God,  neither  regarded  man.  And 
there  was  a  widow  in  that  city,  and  she  came  unto  him, 
saying,  Avenge  me  of  mine  adversary :  and  he  would 
not  for  a  while.  But  afterwards  he  said  within  himself. 
Though  I  fear  not  God,  nor  regard  man,  yet,  because 
this  widow  troubleth  me,  I  will  avenge  her,  lest,  by  her 
contixi'-ial  coming,  she  weary  me.  And  the  Lord  said, 
Hear  what  the  unjust  judge  saith.  And  shall  not  God 
avenge  his  own  elect,  which  cry  day  and  night  unto  him, 
though  he  bear  long  with  them  ?  I  tell  you  that  he  vrill 
avenge  them  speedily." 

uSow,  will  this  language  apply  to  sinners.^  Are  they 
God's  own  elect,  who  cry  day  and  night  to  him?  So  to 
assert  would  be  shocking.  And  yet  clearly  God's  own 
elect"  are  the  persons  for  whose  benefit  the  parable  was 
spoken,  and  whom  it  teaches  to  pray  always  and  not  to 
faint.    It  has  no  reference  whatever  to  sinners. 

But  the  following  rendering  of  Dr.  Campbell  settles 
the  question: — "He  [Christ]  also  showed  them,  [the 
disciples,]  by  a  parable,  that  they  ought  to  persist  in 
prayer  without  growing  weary." 

Why,  now,  did  Mr.  Jeter  cite  only  the  introduction  to 
the  parable,  and  build  his  argument  on  it,  intentionally 
suppressing  the  conclusion,  which  he  knew  to  be  de- 
cisive against  him  ?  It  is  surely  a  pity  that  a  man  who 
affects  to  oppose  nothing  but  error  should  yet  so  often 
do  so  with  those  artifices  with  which  dishonest  men 
alone  stoop  to  oppose  the  truth. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  179 

The  next  case  alluded  to  by  Mr.  Jeter  is  that  of  the 
publican  who  went  up  to  the  temple  to  praj.  But  this 
is  not  a  case  in  point.  We  have  not  denied  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  a  Jew,  living  under  the  laAv,  to  pray.  What 
we  deny  is  that  it  is  the  dut}^  of  the  ungodly,  during 
the  reign  of  Christ,  to  pray.  But  even  the  case  of  tlie 
publican  does  not  determine  who — i.e.  whether  saint  or 
sinner — is  to  pray,  but  only  that  whoever  pra^'s  must, 
if  he  pray  acceptably,  'pray  with  deep,  heartfelt  humility. 
This  is  what  the  case  determines, — no  more. 

The  third  case  referred  to  is  that  of  the  thief  on  the 
cross.  But  this  case,  again,  has  no  reference  whatever 
to  the  question  in  dispute.  Besides  being  a  case  which 
can  never  ha23pen  again,  and  intended  to  teach  no  gene- 
ral duty,  it  occurred  at  a  time  when  baptism  was  obli- 
gatory on  no  one.  We  shall,  therefore,  dismiss  it  with- 
out further  notice. 

The  fourth  and  last  case  adduced  by  3Ir.  Jeter  is  that 
of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  of  which  he  thus  speaks: — '^When 
Saul  of  Tarsus  was  converted,  the  Lord  directed  Ananias 
to  go  to  him,  for,  behold,  said  the  Lord,  he  jprayeth. 
(Acts  ix.  11.)  It  is  clear  from  this  Scripture,  beyond  a 
question,  not  only  that  Saul  prayed  before  his  baptism, 
but  that  his  prayer  was  acceptable  to  the  Lord,  and  that 
Ananias  was  sent  to  instruct  and  baptize  him  in  conse- 
quence of  its  acceptableness ;  and  this  example  of  ac- 
ceptable prayer  has  all  the  weight,  authority,  and  effi- 
cacy of  an  explicit  command  to  the  unbaptized  to 
pray.'' 

1.  We  readily  grant  that  Saul  prayed,  but  deny  that 
he  prayed  because  Christ  made  it  his  duty  to  pray.  He 


180 


REVIEW  OF  CAMrBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


prayed  precisely  as  any  other  Jew,  in  deep  sorrow, 
would  have  prayed,  and  for  no  other  reason. 

2.  That  his  prayer  was  acceptable  to  the  Lord  is  not 
known.  It  may  or  it  may  not  have  been,  for  aiight  that 
appears  in  the  narrative.  The  Lord  merely  stated  the 
fact  that  he  prayed,  not  that  he  accepted  his  prayer.  To 
state  a  fact,  as  a  fact,  is  one  thing;  to  accept  it  as  an  act 
of  worship,  another.  We  must  first  show  that  the  Lord 
has  made  it  the  duty  of  the  sinner  to  pray,  before  wc  can 
infer  that  his  prayer  is  acceptable.  And  as  to  Ananias 
being  sent  to  instruct  and  baptize  Saul  in  consequence  of 
the  acceptahleness  of  his  prayer,  it  is  a  sheer  fiction.  There 
exists  no  evidence  that  it  is  true. 

The  most  that  can  be  said  of  the  case  of  Saul  (and 
this  much  certainly  can  be  said)  is,  that,  when  Ananias 
commanded  him  to  be  baptized  and  wash  away  his  sins, 
he  commanded  him  to  do  so  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord.  And  so  we  say.  Command  the  sinner,  not  to 
pray  for  the  remission  of  his  sins,  (for  the  Lord  has  not 
enjoined  it  on  him,)  but  to  be  bajDtized  and  wash  them 
away  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.  This  form  of 
prayer,  and  under  these  circumstances,  we  approve  from 
our  heart. 

And  are  these  cases  all  that  Mr.  Jeter  could  urge  in 
defence  of  his  doctrine  ?  and  does  he  ask  us  to  accept  it 
as  true  on  no  better  grounds  ?  "VVe  shall  only  add,  wo 
wonder  that  even  he  did  not  become  ashamed  of  his 
feeble  defence,  and  abandon  the  cause  he  was  so  in- 
effectually seeking  to  establish. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


181 


CHAPTEE  VII. 

KEMISSION    OF  SINS. 

SECTION  I. 

The  subjects  heretofore  treated  of  are  important  cer- 
tainly, but  the  present  one  is  peculiarly  so.  Indeed, 
those  subjects  derive  their  value  from  this.  Hence, 
no  effort  should  be  spared  to  understand  it,  nor  any 
method  be  left  untried  which  is  likely  to  aid  us  in  form- 
ing accurate  scriptural  conceptions  of  it.  The  absorb- 
ing interest  of  the  subject,  and  the  conflicting  opinions 
which  exist  respecting  it,  should  make  us  patient  in  the 
collection  of  such  facts  as  seem  most  likely  to  lead  to 
sound  decisions  concerning  it,  as  well  as  careful  in  com- 
bining those  facts  and  just  in  deducing  from  them  no 
conclusion  which  they  do  not  warrant.  From  the  mind 
and  from  the  heart  every  preference  for  any  view  of 
the  subject,  which  it  is  not  clearly  the  intention  of  our 
heavenly  Father  we  should  entertain,  should  be  banished 
completely  and  forever.  Upon  this  subject,  at  least,  let 
the  sincere  love  of  the  truth  direct  our  thoughts. 

In  the  discussion  of  this  subject  Mr.  Jeter  consumes 
Bome  sixty-nine  pages  of  his  book.  Perhaps  we  should 
suppose  him  sincere.  It  is  not  impossible  he  may  be  so. 
But,  candidly,  this  part  of  his  book  affords  no  feeble 
evidence  that  the  love  of  the  truth  dwells  not  in  his 
heart.    If,  throughout  the  whole  chapter,  he  was  not 

lo 


182  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

struggling  against  the  clear  convictions  of  Ms  con- 
science, he  has  at  least  shown  that  he  was  struggling 
against  the  almost  ovei'i:)Owering  light  of  the  Trutli. 
We  stoop  not  to  do  him  injustice,  but  Ave  knoAV  not  the 
book,  making  the  slightest  pretension  to  truth,  from 
which  can  be  extracted  a  more  shameful  perversion 
of  it  than  is  contained  in  this  inflated  performance. 
Throughout  the  whole  piece  he  labors  to  make  it  appear 
that  he  is  sa3'ing  something  important;  hence  its  re- 
dundancy of  silly  epithets.  It  teems  with  trickery  and 
special  pleading,  and  perks  its  commonplace  sayings  in 
our  face  on  every  page.  There  is  something  about  it 
so  false,  haggled,  and  paltry,  as  to  leave  the  mind  im- 
pressed with  no  feelings  but  mingled  pity  and  disgust. 
Upon  the  ground  of  merit,  whether  consisting  in  defen- 
sive arguments  or  refutatory  strength,  we  should  never 
have  lifted  a  pen  over  this  wretched  chapter.  But  we 
shall  be  expected  to  notice  it,  and,  accordingly,  shall  do 
so.  We  make  it  the  occasion  of  restating  our  own 
views,  which  will  exhaust  its  value  to  the  world. 

In  the  present  chapter  we  shall  assume  that  sins 
during  the  reign  of  Christ  are  remitted  according  to 
a  uniform  plan ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  conditions 
on  which  they  are  remitted  are  precisely  the  same  in 
every  case.  Xow,  the  question  is,  what  is  that  plan,  or 
what  those  conditions  ?  When  we  assume  that  these 
conditions  are  the  same  in  every  case,  let  us  be  under- 
stood. We  speak  not  of  the  innocent  babe,  the  iiTe- 
sponsible  idiot,  or  untaught  heathen.  We  speak  of 
those  only  who  have  attained  to  years  of  accountability, 
and  to  whom  the  redemption  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMIxXED. 


183 


has  been  tendered.  We  are  now,  in  other  words,  to 
discuss  the  law  of  remission,  not  the  question,  Are  there 
exceptions  to  it?  to  determine  the  grounds  on  which 
God  w^ll  forgive  the  responsible,  not  those  on  which  ho 
saves  the  irresponsible ;  to  ascertain  the  plan  according 
to  which  he  will  save  the  enlightened,  not  that  accord- 
ing to  which  he  saves  the  unenlightened. 

Mr.  Jeter  maintains  that  a  person's  sins  are  remitted 
the  instant  in  tvhich  he  becomes  a  penitent  beliecer,  and, 
consequently,  before  and  without  baptism.  From  this  w^e 
dissent. 

We  maintain  that  the  sinner,  though  a  believer,  is  still 
required  to  repent  and  be  baptized  in  order  to  the  remission 
of  his  sins,  and,  consequently,  that  they  are  not  remitted 
before  and  vjithout  baptism. 

"We  shall  now  proceed  to  the  defence  of  this  position; 
after  which,  we  shall  notice  such  of  Mr.  Jeter's  objec- 
tions to  it  as  may  be  deemed,  on  any  ground,  worthy 
of  notice.  We  shall  then  notice  his  defence  of  his  own 
position. 

The  passage  on  w^hich  we  base  our  first  argument  is 
the  following: — '^Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 

That  the  salvation  here  spoken  of  is  that  primary 
salvation  which  consists  in  the  remission  of  sins,  we 
hold  to  be  simply  certain.  The  Savior  directs  the 
apostles  to  go  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature. 
This  is  the  salvation  which  occurs  first  and  immediately 
after  the  preaching;  hence,  there  is  no  salvation  which 
precedes  this,  nor  any  sense  in  which,  previous  to  it, 


184 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


the  term  salvation  vrill  apply.  This  is  the  first,  and  is 
80  called  hecause  it  consists  in  the  remission  of  sin?. 
If  any  one  doubts  this,  let  him  attempt  to  form  to  him 
self  the  conception  of  some  preceding  salvation;  let  him 
state  in  what  it  consists,  then  in  what  this  consists, 
if  not  in  the  remission  of  sins;  then  let  him  make  the 
effort  to  establish  by  the  word  of  God  the  reality  of 
such  preceding  salvation,  and  he  will  not  be  long  in 
discovering — if  honest — his  error. 

Xor  can  it  fail  to  strike  any  one  that  this  salvation  is 
conditional,  and  that  the  conditions  are  named  in  the 
passage.  These  conditions  are  not  to  be  regarded  in 
the  light  of  causes,  but  as  conditions  strictly.  Still, 
let  no  one  suppose,  because  they  are  conditions,  that 
they  are  not  essential  to  whatever  is  made  dependent 
on  them.  A  condition  may  be  as  absolutely  essential 
to  whatever  is  dependent  on  it  as  though  it  were  a 
cause  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  Avord.  There  is  this 
distinction: — the  connection  between  a  cause  and  its 
effect  is  necessary;  that  is,  it  exists  in  the  very  nature 
of  things;  but  the  connection  between  a  condition  and 
whatever  depends  on  it  is  not  necessary,  but  arbitrary. 
It  exists  at  the  will,  or  by  the  appointment,  of  him  who 
prescribes  the  condition.  Ilenco,  conditions  have  no 
power  to  produce,  or  merit  to  procure,  that  which  de- 
pends on  them.  It  is  in  all  cases  conferred  as  a  gratuity 
or  favor.  Compliance  with  conditions,  on  the  ground 
that  there  is  merit  in  it,  can  oblige  the  Savior  to  confer 
no  blessing.  Though  he  has  prescribed  the  conditions, 
and  they  are  complied  with,  still,  the  blessing  conferred 
is  a  matter  of  grace  or  mercy.    But,  where  he  has 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXA:MINED. 


185 


promised  to  confer  such  blessing,  it  will  as  certainl}^  be 
conferred,  where  the  prescribed  conditions  are  complied 
with,  as  though  the  conditions  were  absolute  causes  and 
the  blessing  an  effect  certain  to  follow.  What  is  here 
said  presents  us  with  the  true  view  and  suggests  the 
real  value  of  the  conditions  named  in  the  passage. 

Two  questions  here  present  themselves, — both  easily 
answered,  to-be-sure, — the  first  respecting  the  nuraher  of 
these  conditions,  the  second,  ichat  they  are.  The  first 
of  these  questions  may  be  deemed  by  some  a  matter  of 
no  moment.  From  such  a  view  we  differ.  ISIot  that 
we  think  any  thing  of  moment  depends  on  the  mere 
circumstance  of  these  conditions  being  many  or  few. 
There  exists  a  far  higher  reason  than  this  for  de- 
termining their  number.  That  reason  we  shall  embody 
in  the  form  of  a  rule,  thus: — Where  salvation  is  promised 
to  a  person,  or  affirmed  of  Mm,  on  certaiji  named  conditions, 
though  it  may  depend  on  more  conditions  than  those  named, 
it  can  never  depend  on  less.  To  this  rule  there  is  not,  we 
affirm,  an  exception  in  the  Bible.  We  boldly  challenge 
Mr.  Jeter  to  produce  even  one,  or  to  show  that  the  rule 
in  any  case  affirms  falsely  and  is  hence  unsound.  Unless 
he  can  do  this,  the  controversy  between  him  and  us  in 
regard  to  the  value  of  baptism  is  at  an  end. 

]S[ow,  that  the  passage  in  hand  contains  two,  and  but 
two,  conditions,  is  obvious  even  to  the  eye.  These  con- 
ditions are  belief  and  baptism.  The  Savior  promises 
salvation  to,  or  affirms  it  of,  him  who  complies  w^ith 
these  conditions.  This  is  absolutely  certain.  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved.  Hence,  unless 
the  foregoing  rule  can  be  shown  to  be  unsound,  (which 


186 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


we  predict  will  not  be  showily)  it  folloAvs  that,  although 
salvation — or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  remission  of  sins 
— may  depend  on  more  than  belief  and  baptism,  the  two 
named  conditions,  it  can  never  depend  on  less.  And,  when 
we  say  it  can  never  depend  on  less,  we  beg  that  our 
previous  limitation  will  be  borne  in  mind.  "We  speak  of 
the  responsible  to  whom  the  gospel  is  preached,  and  of 
them  alone.  Here  now  is  an  argument,  which  we 
believe  to  be  true  in  its  premises  and  correct  in  its  con- 
struction, with  its  conclusion  regularly  drawn,  to  which 
we  invite  the  special  attention  of  Mr.  Jeter.  AYe  re- 
quest of  him  that  he  will  come  manfully  and  fairly  for- 
ward and  join  issue  with  us  over  this  argument;  that  he 
will  show  that  its  premises  are  false,  its  construction  de- 
fective, or  its  conclusion  not  fairly  drawn.  This  much 
we  have  a  right  to  demand,  and  we  do  demand  it  in  the 
name  of  truth  and  reason.  Should  he  fail  to  comply,  he 
confesses  his  incompetenc}"  to  the  task,  and  abandons 
the  question  at  issue  in  our  favor. 

Nor  can  we  admit,  much  as  Mr.  Jeter  is  inclined  to 
cavil  at  it,  that  salvation  depends  on  one  of  these  con- 
ditions more  than  on  the  other.  The  very  form  of  ex- 
pression which  creates  the  dependence  makes  salvation 
depend  on  the  two  conditions  jointly  and  on  each  equally. 
The  present,  moreover,  is  the  passage  which  creates  this 
joint  dependence.  Hence,  no  passage  spoken  previously 
to  it  can  have  the  least  effect  in  weakening  it,  certainly 
none  in  showing  that  it  does  not  exist;  and,  since  none 
spoken  subsequently  in  the  least  affects  it,  it  follows 
that  the  dependence  once  established  must  be  considered 
as  established  forever. 


REVIEAY  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


1S7 


Lender  what  circumstances,  if  any,  the  Savior  will 
void  these  conditions,  or  in  what  cases,  if  at  all,  he  will 
void  one  but  not  the  other,  are  questions  we  shall  leave 
the  curious  to  decide. 

Eut,  for  the  sake  of  those  whose  convictions  rest  not 
so  much  on  argument  as  on  simple,  transparent  state- 
ments, it  may  be  proper  to  somewhat  amplify  the  pas- 
sage. Of  whom,  then,  does  it  say,  he  shall  be  saved? 
Clearly,  of  him  who  believes  and  is  baptized.  Of  him  who 
believes  but  is  not  baptized,  it  says  nothing ;  neither  of 
him  who  is  baptized  but  does  not  believe,  does  it  say 
any  thing.  Of  him  alone  who  believes  and  is  baptized 
does  it  say  any  thing;  but  of  him  it  does  say  he  shall 
be  saved.  The  instant  he  believes  and  is  baptized, 
all  the  passage  says  is  true  of  him,  but  not  an  instant 
before. 

The  psssage  directs  the  apostles  to  go  into  all  the 
world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  Out  of 
the  whole  number  preached  to,  it  selects  a  particular 
class,  of  each  of  whom  it  says,  he  shall  be  saved,  reject- 
ing all  the  rest.  AVhat  now  makes  the  difference  be- 
tween the  class  selected  and  the  class  rejected?  For 
what  especial  reason  is  a  preference  shown  ?  Each  one 
of  the  class  selected  believes  and  is  baptized.  This  makes 
the  difference.  Xo  matter  how  inuch,  or  how  little,  or 
what,  short  of  this,  the  class  rejected  may  do,  of  it  sal- 
vation is  not  afSrmed.  The  class  selected  believes  and  is 
baptized;  therefore  it  is  saved. 

We  shall  now  subjoin,  and  briefly  examine,  a  passage 
which  is  thought  to  justify  a  very  different  conclusion 
from  that  now  arrived  at  i  to  wit : — ^'He  that  believeth  on 


183 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLTSM  EXAMINED. 


the  Son  hath  everlasting  life.''  On  this  passage  Mr.  Jeter 
and  all  that  class  of  soj^hists  to  which  he  belongs  lay 
great  stress.  Their  argument  on  it  is  briefly  this  : — He 
that  believes  on  the  Son  has  in  him^  the  instant  in  which 
he  does  so,  the  princij^le  or  germ  of  eternal  life,  and  is 
therefore  to  be  considered  forgiven.  If  by  this  it  is 
meant  that  belief  is  the  princi^^le  or  germ  of  eternal  life, 
we  shall  grant  it  to  be  correct,  but  still  deny  that  he 
who  simply  believes  is,  on  that  ground  alone,  forgiven. 
But  if  it  is  meant  that  the  principle  or  germ  of  eternal 
life  is  something  else  besides  belief, — which  imphes  re- 
mission,— we  utterly  deny  that  the  jp'issage  teaches  the 
doctrine. 

But,  without  being  more  specific,  let  us  grant  that  the 
passage  affirms  remission,  or  what  implies  it,  of  him 
who  believes ;  and  more  than  this  it  certainly  does  not 
affirm.  Eemission  of  sins,  then,  according  to  the  rule 
previously  stated,  can  never  depend  on  less  than  belief, 
— the  named  condition, — though  it  may  depend  on  more. 
ISTow,  it  will  readily  be  conceded  that  it  can  never  de- 
pend on  less ;  but  may  it  depend  on  more  ?  Even  Mr. 
Jeter  concedes  not  only  that  it  may  depend  on  more,  hut 
that  it  actually  does, — namely,  on  repentance.  And,  in  so 
doing,  he  concedes  what  proves  the  utter  annihilation 
of  the  sole  ground  on  which  his  doctrine  of  remission 
rests.  For,  if  remission  may  depend  on  more  than  be- 
lief,— the  only  condition  named  in  the  passage, — the 
question  arises.  On  how  much  more  ?  When  Mr.  Jeter 
says,  on  repentance  only,  this  is  an  arbitrary  limitation. 
We  cannot  admit  this  to  be  the  answer  to  the  question, 
How  much  more  ?  But,  according  to  the  rule,  remission 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  180 

cannot  depend  on  less  than  both  belief  and  baptism, — the 
conditions  named  in  the  previous  passage;  whereas, 
both  according  to  the  rule  and  Mr.  Jeter's  concession,  it 
may  depend  on  more  than  belief, — the  only  condition 
named  in  the  present  passage.  Now,  one  thing  will  be 
granted, — that  the  passages  are  reconcilable.  When, 
then,  we  concede  that  remission  of  sins  may  depend  on 
more  than  belief, — the  sole  condition  named  in  the  pre- 
sent passage, — must  we  not  concede  at  least  as  much  as  is 
contained  within  the  narrowest  limits  of  the  previous  pas- 
sage? If  not,  the  passages  are  not  reconcilable,  since 
they  teach  that  remission  of  sins  depends  not  on  one 
and  the  same  set  of  conditions,  but  on  two  different  sets; 
which,  again,  is  contrary  to  the  hypothesis  that  the 
conditions  are  the  sarnie  in  all  cases.  Hence,  since  bap- 
tism is  the  only  condition  contained  within  these  limits 
which  is  not  named  in  the  present  passage,  it  follows 
that  we  are  bound  to  concede  baptism  to  be  necessary 
to  salvation  or  remission. 

In  order  to  sustain  Mr.  Jeter's  position  that  remission 
of  sins  depends  on  belief  and  rej^entance  alone,  one  of 
these  passages  must  be  so  construed  as  to  imply  a  con- 
dition which  it  does  not  name;  but,  in  order  to  oppose 
our  position,  the  other  must  be  so  construed  as  either  to 
exclude,  or  render  null,  a  condition  which  it  does  name. 
How  amiable  must  that  complacency  be  which  blinds  a 
man  to  nothing  so  much  as  his  folly,  and  forbids  no 
blush  but  that  which  inconsistency  prompts  ! 

But,  granting  that  he  who  believes  is,  in  the  instant 
in  which  he  does  so,  saved :  what  follows  ?  He  that 
believes  and  is  baptized  shall  be — what?    Not  saved, 


190 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED, 


surely;  for  he  is  already  saved  in  the  exact  sense  in 
Tvliieh  the  passage  says,  he  si  tail  he  saved.  Can  we  say 
of  an  event  which  is  past,  and  which  can  never  happen 
hut  once,  that  it  shall  he?  Is  this  the  Language  of  truth? 
"We  see  not  tlie  distinction  hetween  avowed  infidehty 
and  that  system  of  religion  which  compels  the  Bihle  to 
falsify  itself 

But  Mr.  Jeter's  exposition  of  the  passage  on  which 
our  first  argument  is  hased  is  worthy  to  be  repeated.  It 
is  contained  in  the  following  extract: — ^'The  assurance 
that  he  that  helieveth  and  is  haptized  shall  he  saved  does 
by  no  means  warrant  the  conclusion  that  remission  of 
sins  docs  not  precede  baptism.  There  is  perfect  accord- 
ance between  this  promise  and  the  plain,  literal  declara- 
tion of  Jesus  that  ^  he  that  believeth  on  the  Son  is  not 
condemned.'  Certainly,  if  he  that  believes  on  the  Son 
is  not  condemned,  he  who  not  only  beheves  in  the  Son, 
but,  in  submission  to  his  authority,  is  baptized,  is  not 
condemned." 

If  he  that  believes  on  the  Son  is  not  condemned, 
certainly  he  that  believes  and  is  baptized  is  not  con- 
demned; or,  plainly,  he  that  is  not  condemned  is  not 
condemned!  Such  is  the  logic  of  Mr.  Jeter.  It  may 
comport  with  his  sense  of  propriety  to  trifle  thus  with 
solemn  things,  but  in  the  act  he  confesses  his  inability 
to  meet  the  issue  between  him  and  us.  ISTo  one  is  de- 
ceived into  the  belief  that  this  is  either  argument  or 
criticism,  or  any  thing  more  than  a  shallow  artifice 
adopted  to  evade  the  force  of  an  unanswerable  position. 
But  'Hhe  assurance  that  he  that  believes  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  he  saved  does  by  no  means  warrant  the  con- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  191 

elusion  tliat  remission  of  sins  does  not  precede  baptism." 
In  other  words,  a  divine  ^promise  that  a  person,  on 
compliance  with  certain  named  conditions,  shall  receive 
a  stipulated  blessing,  by  no  means  warrants  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  reception  of  the  blessing  does  not  precede  the 
compliance!    Thus  foolishly  argues  our  opponent. 

Eut  Mr.  Jeter,  after  all,  compliments  the  position  he 
so  vainly  seeks  to  refute,  by  the  very  disposition  he 
makes  of  this  passage.  Ilis  evasive  and  quibbling  treat- 
ment of  it  is  a  virtual  acknowledgment  that  the  argu- 
ment which  we,  as  a  people,  base  ujoon  it,  is,  by  him  at 
least,  wholly  unanswerable.  He  shrunk  from  a  manful 
encounter  of  that  argument,  and  in  the  deed  confessed 
it  to  be  invincible.  To  omit  all  notice  of  the  passage  he 
knew  w^ould  be  highly  impolitic,  and  yet  in  treating  it 
he  touched  it  with  a  delicacy  which  nothing  save  his 
sense  of  utter  incompetency  could  create.  Had  Mr. 
Jeter  felt  himself  able  to  wrest  the  passage  from  our 
hands,  or  to  show  that  the  use  we  make  of  it  is  illegiti- 
mate, he  is  not  the  man  to  let  the  occasion  slip.  In  that 
event  nothing  short  of  a  score  of  pages  could  have  ex- 
hausted his  revelry  or  afforded  vent  for  his  exultant 
feelings.  His  array  of  exclamation-points  would  have 
exhausted  the  printer's  stock  on  hand,  his  ordinals 
would  have  mounted  rapidly  up  to  tenthly,  and  the  te 
deum  to  Orthodoxy  would  have  been  repeated  in  tones 
unusually  sweet ;  but,  alas,  eleven  lines  scant  is  all  the 
space  Mr.  Jeter  could  afford  to  devote  to  the  passage  ! 

But  what  of  the  passage  "he  that  believeth  on  the  Son  is 
not  condemned"  P 

1st.  It  is  to  be  explained  precisely  as  we  have  already 


192 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


explained  the  passage^  "he  that  believeth  on  the  Son 
hath  everhasting  Ufc." 

2d.  Since  the  passage  was  spoken  long  before  baptism 
was  instituted,  and  without  any  reference  to  it;  it  can 
hence  have  no  power  to  invalidate  the  design  of  an  in- 
stitution then  future.  But,  even  granting  that,  when 
the  passage  was  spoken,  remission  of  sins  depended 
strictly  on  belief  alone,  it  would  only  follow  that  in 
subsequently  prescribing  the  conditions  of  remission 
the  Savior  determined  that  it  sliould  depend  no  longer 
on  belief  alone,  but  on  belief  and  something  more. 

3d.  "Where  two  statutes  exist, — a  former  and  a  latter, 
both  on  the  same  subject, — the  latter  is  always  held  to  be 
the  law ;  and,  if  any  difference  exists  between  them,  the 
latter  stands,  setting  aside  the  former  precisely  to  the 
extent  of  the  difference.  And  the  rule  holds  true  of  the 
divine  no  less  than  of  the  civil  law.  Supjoose,  then,  ''he 
that  believeth  on  the  Son  is  not  condemned"  to  be  the 
former  statute,  (which  is  strictly  true,)  and  "he  that  be- 
lieveth and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved"  to  be  the  latter: 
which  stands  as  the  law  of  the  Savior  upon  the  subject 
of  salvation  ?    X one  can  mistake  the  correct  reply. 


SECTIOX  II. 

The  passage  on  which  we  found  our  second  argument 
is  the  following : — '^Then  Peter  said  to  them,  Bepent  and  be 
baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

Without  some  qualification  it  is  not  correct  to  say  of 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  19^^ 

one  passage  of  Scripture  that  it  is  more  imj^ortant  than 
another.  But  it  is  certainly  true  of  some  passages  that 
they  are  more  important  than  others  in  the  decision  of 
certain  questions,  their  importance  in  such  cases  depend- 
ing on  their  pertinency  to  the  question  in  hand  and 
their  force  in  deciding  it.  Accordingly,  in  deciding  the 
terms  upon  which  the  remission  of  sins  is  to  be  enjoyed, 
no  more  important  passage  can  be  adduced  than  the 
one  now  in  hand.  It  speaks  to  the  question  of  remis- 
sion intentionally,  clearly,  decisively.  Had  we  not  an- 
other passage  in  the  Bible  upon  the  subject,  we  should 
still  insist  that  this  passage  alone  forever  fixes  the  value 
of  baptism  by  the  establishment  of  an  inseparable  con- 
nection between  it  and  remission  of  sins.  We  fear  not 
to  go  before  the  world  and  stake  the  entire  issue  between 
Mr.  Jeter  and  us,  respecting  the  design  of  baptism,  upon 
this  single  passage.  We  emphasize  its  value  in  the 
present  controversy  and  solicit  for  it  especial  attention. 

Now,  we  affirm  that  this  passage  teaches  that  baptism 
with  repentance  is  for — that  is,  is  necessary  to — remission 
of  sins;  that  it  makes  remission  depend  on  baptism  in 
precisely  the  same  sense  in  which  it  makes  it  depend  on 
repentance;  and  that  a  connection  is  thus  established 
between  them  of  a  nature  so  permanent  that  remission 
is  in  all  cases  (previous  exceptions  aside)  consequent  on 
baptism  and  never  precedes  it. 

It  will  not  be  denied  that  the  connection  here  con- 
tended for  is  possible.  It  is  certainly  competent  for  our 
heavenly  Father  to  make  remission  depend  on  baptism 
in  the^most  absolute  sense.    Since,  then,  the  connection 

is  not  impossible,  the  question,  Does  it  exist  ?  is  fairly 
17  N 


194  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

open  for  discussion;  and,  since  it  is  a  question  of  fact, 
it  is  susceptible  of  proof  precisely  as  is  any  other  ques- 
tion of  fact  in  the  Bible. 

But  iet  it  be  determined, — 1st,  whether  the  form  of 
speech  employed  to  express  this  connection,  supposing 
it  to  exist,  is,  in  the  judgment  of  critics,  adequate  to 
that  purpose ;  2d,  whether  it  is  a  form  of  speech  well 
established  or  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  form  of  speech  to  which  we  refer  is  the  use 
of  the  Greek  particle  ek;  (ise)  to  express  that  an  act  or 
acts  is  performed /or — i.e.  in  order  to — some  end  or  object; 
and  the  presence  of  an  accusative  case  to  express  what 
that  end  or  object  is.  But  is  this  form  of  speech  ade- 
quate to  this  purpose?  That  it  is  so,  we  shall  consider 
established  by  the  following  testimonies : — 

1.  ^'-£7.'?,  followed  by  an  accusative,  in  almost  innume- 
rable instances  designates  the  object  or  end  for  which  any 
thing  is,  or  is  done." — Prof.  M.  Stuart. 

2.  Etq,  the  design  intended  and  the  event  produced 
are  also  expressed  by  this  preposition." — W.  Trollope, 
of  Pembroke  College,  Cambridge. 

The  literal,  or,  rather,  primary,  meaning  of  tiq,  it  is 
proper  to  state,  is  into,  a  meaning  confined  chiefly  to 
verbs  of  motion, — the  motion  being  directed  into  some- 
thing or  som  3  place.  But  the  sense  of  the  passage  now 
in  hand  forbids  this  meaning.  For,  first,  if  the  particle 
be  taken  litei  ally,  the  passage  is  not  intelligible,  or,  at 
best,  has  a  V3ry  uncertain  meaning.  Second,  it  belongs 
to  a  class  of  passages  in  which  the  particle  signifies  not 
into,  but  in  order  to,  expressing  the  end  or  object  for 
which  something  is  done.    Evidence  for  what  is  here 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


195 


said  will  be  furnished  in  the  course  of  the  present 
argument. 

But  is  this  form  of  speech  of  frequent  occurrence  or 
well  established  in  the  ISTew  Testament?  That  it  is  so, 
we  shall  now  proceed  to  exemplify  by  actual  instances. 
Of  each  of  these  we  shall  quote  no  more  than  will  be 
necessary;  and,  in  order  to  indicate  the  exact  mean- 
ing of  the  particle,  we  shall,  in  each  case,  translate  it, 
together  with  a  few  of  the  words  which  immediately 
follow  it.  Let  the  reader  bear  in  mind  that  what  we 
are  noAV  at  is,  to  show  that  is  employed  to  express 
the  design  of  an  act  or  that  for  ichich  it  is  performed. 

1.  And,  behold,  the  whole  city  came  out  (sjg)  in  order 
to  a  meeting  with  Jesus. 

2.  Wheresoever  this  gospel  shall  be  preached  in  the 
whole  world,  there  shall  also  this,  that  this  woman  hath 
done,  be  told  (er?)  in  order  to  her  being  remembered. 

3.  And  they  took  counsel  and  bought  with  them  the 
potters'  field,  (sr?)  in  order  to  [have]  a  burying-place  for 
strangers. 

4.  This  is  my  body  which  is  given  for  you :  this  do 
(e:?)  in  order  to  my  being  remembered. 

5.  By  w^hom  we  have  received  grace  and  apostleship 
(eiq)  in  order  to  [induce]  the  obedience  of  faith  among 
all  nations. 

6.  I  long  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart  to  you  some 
spiritual  gift  (es?)  in  order  to  your  being  established. 

7.  Submit  yourselves  to  governors  as  to  them  that  are 
sent  by  the  Lord  (st?)  in  order  to  punish  evil-doers. 

8.  This  is  my  blood  which  is  shed  (e:?)  in  order  ta 
remission  of  sins. 


196  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

9.  A 'lid  John  came  into  all  the  country  about  the 
Jordan,  preaching  the  baptism  of  re^^entance  (ei^)  in 
order  to  remission  of  sins. 

10.  Eepent  ye,  therefore,  and  be  converted  (£:<r)  in 
order  to  the  blotting  out  of  your  sins. 

These,  though  only  a  few  from  a  large  number  of  pas- 
sages all  belonging  to  the  same  class,  are  quite  sufficient 
to  show  that  this  is  a  common  and  well-established  form 
of  speech  in  the  Xew  Testament. 

But  does  the  passage  now  in  hand  belong  to  this  class P 
We  reply.  It  does ;  and  that  this  is  shown  by  a  circum- 
stance which  renders  it  absolutely  certain.  In  order  to 
present  the  most  distinct  view  of  this  circumstance,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  exhibit  the  dependent  clauses  of  the 
passage  in  immediate  connection  with  one  another,  let 
us  omit,  first,  the  clause  "in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,'' 
when  the  passage  (leaving  the  particle  untranslated) 
will  read  thus : — Eepent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of 
you,  £iq  remission  of  sins.  Next,  let  us  transpose  the 
first  two  clauses  of  the  passage,  when  it  will  stand 
thus :— Every  one  of  you  repent  and  be  oaptizcd  er? 
remission  of  sins.  Last,  let  us  omit  the  exj)ression  ^^  be 
baptized,"  which  will  neither  affect,  the  form  of  speech 
nor  the  sense  of  the  pmrticle,  when  we  shall  have.  Every 
one  of  you  repent  ec?  remission  of  sins ;  or,  translating 
the  particle.  Every  one  of  you  repent  (en;)  in  order  to 
remission  of  sins.  From  this  there  cannot  be  a  dissent- 
ing voice.  Iso  expression  but  in  order  to,  or  the  word 
for  in  the  sense  of  in  order  to,  will  express  the  meaning 
of  the  particle.  Here,  now,  the  relation  between  repent- 
ance and  remission  of  sins  is  clearly-  seen.  Eemission 


REVIEW  OF  CAMipBELLiSM  EXAMINED. 


197 


of  sins  is  seen  to  dejjend  on  repentance,  or  repentance  to 
be  necessary  to  remission.  Xow,  this  relation  is  precisely 
the  circumstance  which  determines  to  what  class  the 
passage  belongs, — namely,  to  that  class  in  which  eiq  sig- 
nifies "i7i  order  to," — i.e.  necessarily,  and  in  which,  conse- 
quently, it  can  signify  nothing  else. 

But  does  not  the  presence  of  the  term  ^'be  baptized'' 
except  the  passage  from  this  class  ?  We  shall  see.  The 
audience  were  commanded  to  do  two  things  : — repent 
and  be  baptized.  These  two  things  are  related  to  a 
third, — ^remission  of  sins;  and,  whatever  that  relation 
is,  it  is  of  necessity  one,  for  there  is  but  one  particle  to 
express  it,  which,  in  the  same  place,  cannot  express  two 
relations.  Consequently,  whatever  relation  repentance 
bears  to  remission  of  sins,  baptism  bears  to  it.  Hence, 
the  presence  of  the  term  ^'be  baptized"  does  not  except 
the  passage  from  the  class. 

Since,  therefore,  the  relation  which  repentance  bears 
to  remission  of  sins  determines  the  passage  to  belong  to 
that  class  in  which  s:?  signifies  in  order  to,  and  in  which 
it  can  signify  nothing  else,  and  since  the  presence  of  the 
term  be  baptized"  does  not  except  the  passage  from 
that  class,  it  follows  that  the  true  intent  and  meaning 
of  the  passage  is,  Eepent  and  be  baptized,  every  one 
of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  (sic)  in  order  to 
remission  of  sins. 

Finally,  we  conclude,  from  the  grounds  now  before  us, 
that  the  relation  of  baptism  to  remission  of  sins  is  such 
that  baptism,  like  repentance,  is  necessary  to  remissior ; 
or  that  remission  depends  on  baptism  in  precisely  the 
game  sense  in  which  it  depends  on  repentance.    And,  if 

17» 


198 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


there  is  either  value  in  criticism  or  reliance  to  be  placed 
in  argument,  the  conclusion  is  indisputable. 

Eut  let  us  suppose  this  position  to  be  denied,  and  that 
it  is  maintained  that  baptism  sustains  to  remission  the 
relation  of  a  subsequent  to  a  former  act,  and  what  fol- 
lows? Clearly,  that  repentance  likewise  sustains  to 
remission  the  relation  of  a  subsequent  to  a  former  act. 
But  this  proves  too  much,  and  hence  is  false.  But  we 
wish  to  exhibit  this  position,  together  with  its  conse- 
quences, even  to  the  eye,  and,  in  order  to  do  so,  will 
again  have  recourse  to  the  passage,  from  which,  after 
transposing  the  clauses  as  before,  we  will  first  omit  the 
word  '^repent,"  thus: — Everyone  of  you  be  baptized 
(etq)  because  your  sins  are  remitted.  This  is  exactly  Mr. 
Jeter's  position, — a  tough  one,  truly.  But  let  us  grant 
that  it  is  true,  or,  rather,  that  we  have  at  last  hit  on 
the  true  meaning  of  the  particle,  and  that  it  is  unalter 
able.  We  will  now  replace  the  word  repent:" — Every 
one  of  you  repent  and  be  baptized  er?  remission  of  sins 
Is  the  meaning  of  the  particle  now  altered  ?  Of  course 
not.  Let  us  then  bring  out  its  meaning : — Every  one 
of  you  repent  and  be  baptized  (cc?)  because  your  sins  are 
remitted;  or,  transposing  the  terms.  Be  baptized  and 
repent  (sr?)  because  your  sins  are  remitted;  plainly, 
Bepent  because  your  sins  are  remitted.  How  absurd! 
And  yet,  absurd  as  it  is,  this  is  a  strict  result  from  ]\Ir. 
Jeter's  method  of  construing  the  passage.  This  result 
of  false  criticism  and  false  reasoning  has  never  yet  been 
fairly  met  and  honorably  disjDOsed  of  by  even  one  of  our 
opponents.    Indeed,  it  cannot  be. 

It  was  formerly  stated  that  if       be  taken  literally 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  190 

the  present  passage  is  either  not  intelhgible  or  has  a 
very  uncertain  sense,  and  that,  consequently,  a  different 
acceptation  of  the  particle  is  required.  This  becomes 
apparent  by  simply  inserting  its  literal  meaning,  thus : — 
Ecpent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  (sr?)  into  re- 
mission of  sins.  What  can  any  one  collect  from  the 
expression,  repent  into  remission  ?  If  to  English  ears  it 
has  any  meaning  at  all,  it  certainly  is  a  most  vague  and 
uncertain  one.  Nor  does  the  expression  "be  baptized 
into  remission''  yield  a  sense  in  any  respect  better.  Even 
conceding  (what  is  doubtful)  that  the  sense  of  the  pas- 
sage might  be  collected  from  the  primary  meaning  of 
the  particle,  still,  this  is  not  the  sense  in  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  intended  it  to  be  taken,  and  hence  is  not  the 
sense  which  is  most  easily  defended. 

The  present  seen  s  a  proper  place  to  sum  up  the  result 
of  the  two  preceding  arguments.  According,  then,  to 
the  passage  still  in  hand  and  the  rule  formerly  stated, 
remission  of  sins^  though  it  may  depend  on  more,  can 
never  depend  on  less,  than  repentance  and  baptism,  these 
being  the  named  conditions.  In  our  first  argument  it 
was  ascertained  that  remission  can  never  depend  on  less 
than  belief  and  baptism.  From  the  two  arguments,  there- 
fore, we  conclude  that^  although  it  may  still  depend  on 
more,  it  can  never  depend  on  less,  than  belief,  repentance 
and  baptism,  these  being  the  sum  of  all  the  different  con- 
ditions named. 

But  we  shall  now  present  Mr.  Jeter's  exposition,  or 
view,  of  the  passage  on  which  our  second  argument  is 
based.  It  is  contained  in  the  following  extract : — "  In 
Matt.  iii.  11  w^e  have  these  words : — I  indeed  baptize  you 


200  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLTSM  EXAMINED. 

with  water  unto  (eiq)  repentance.  Here  the  term  can- 
not, without  gross  impropriety,  be  rendered  for  or  in 
order  to.  We  know  that  John  did  not  baptize  his  dis- 
ciples in  order  that  the}^  might  repent.  He  demanded 
of  them  not  only  repentance,  but  fruits  meet  for  repent- 
ance, before  he  admitted  them  to  baptism.  He  baptized 
them,  not  that  they  might  obtain  repentance,  but  as  a 
sign  or  acknowledgment  that  they  had  repented.  (Matt, 
iii.  8,  9.)  Kow,  in  the  very  sense  in  which  the  Har- 
binger baptized  his  disciples  (ecq)  unto,  for,  into,  repent- 
ance, did  Peter  command  his  pentecostal  hearers  to  [let 
the  reader  note  that  the  word  ^repenf  is  here  suppressed']  be 
baptized  (ej?)  for,  unto,  into,  remission  of  sins ;  that  is, 
not  to  procure,  but  as  a  sign  or  acknowledgment  of,  this 
privilege,  which  God  has  graciously  and  inseparably 
"united  with  repentance  and  faith." 

1st.  What  is  here  said  rests  on  no  law  of  exegesis 
known  to  the  literary  world.  It  is,  as  a  criticism,  false 
and  arbitrary.  If  Mr.  Jeter  submitted  it  in  candor,  he 
deseiwes  to  be  pitied;  if  not,  to  be  desj^ised.  He  knew, 
or  should  have  known,  that  the  passage  in  Matthew 
differs  from  that  in  Acts  in  the  only  resj)ect  which  could 
have  required  the  particle  to  be  rendered  alike  in  both. 
Eender  the  particle  in  the  former  passage  as  in  the  lat- 
ter, and  the  former  passage  makes  nonsense ;  render  it 
in  the  latter  passage  as  in  the  former,  and  the  latter 
passage  makes  nonsense.  Thus  : — I  indeed  baptize  you 
with  water  (e:^)  in  order  to  repentance — nonsense ;  but, 
repent  and  be  baptized  (sr?)  in  order  to  remission  of  sins 
— sense  good.  Eepent  and  be  baptized  (sj?)  because  of 
remission  of  sins — nonsense ;  but,  I  indeed  baptize  you 


REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  201 


with  water  (s:?)  because  of  repentance — sense  good. 
This  is  enough  to  satisfy  any  thinking  person  that  the 
passages  are  dissimilar  in  the  very  point  material  to  Mr. 
Jeter's  criticism,  and,  consequently,  that  it  is  false.  We 
add,  that  we  accept  the  view  he  seems  to  take  of  the 
word  ^'repent,"  not  as  correct,  but  merely  to  test  the 
soundness  of  his  criticism.  The  correct  view  of  that 
term  would  require  a  different  rendering  of  the  particle. 
But,  as  this  is  not  a  matter  now  in  hand,  we  give  it  no 
further  notice. 

2d.  Why,  in  offering  his  criticism,  did  Mr.  Jeter  em- 
ploy the  three  English  particles  /or,  unto,  and  intOy 
which  are  not  synonymous,  to  represent  but  one  par- 
ticle in  the  Greek  ?  Did  he  fear  to  commit  himself,  and 
hence  seek  to  render  his  expression  as  ambiguous  as 
possible  ?  He  knew  that  to  bring  his  meaning  out 
would  prove  fatal  to  his  criticism;  hence  he  cunningly 
masked  it  under  a  trio  of  particles. 

3d.  But  why  did  Mr.  Jeter,  when  he  came  to  apply 
his  criticism  and  to  develop  the  meaning  of  the  passage, 
suppress  the  word  repent"  ?  "We  commend  him  to  the 
charity  which  thinks  no  evil.  But  he  knew,  first,  that 
Peter  commanded  his  audience  to  he  baptized  for  the  exact 
object  for  which  he  commanded  them  to  repent;  second,  that 
he  commanded  them  to  repent  in  order  to  remission  of  sins; 
and,  third,  that  unless  the  term  repent"  were  suppressed 
this  fact  would  become  apparent  and  falsify  his  criticism. 
Hence,  he  deliberately  suppressed  the  term  to  conceal 
the  weakness  of  his  cause,  and  in  the  act  betrayed 
the  weakness  of  himself.  Such  trickery  as  this  in  the 
work  of  an  infidel  would  be  denominated  base,  but  in 


202 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


the  T\  ork  of  a  CJiiistian  we  shall  mildly  phrase  it  an 
error.  Eut  perhaps  Mr.  Jeter  will  have  the  adroitness 
to  say  that  this  was  an  unintentional  omission^  or  the 
skill  to  transmute  the  printer  into  a  scape-goat  to  carry 
off  his  sin.  Printers  certainly  err  at  times,  as  do  other 
men.  But  there  is  another  class  of  men  singularly 
addicted  to  erring,  always  most  unintentionally  it  is 
true,  but  in  all  of  whose  errors  there  is  noticeable  this 
remarkable  peculiarity, — tJiey  never  err  in  favor  of  the 
adverse  jparf?/,— accountants  (for  example)  whose  books 
exhibit  a  great  many  false  entries,  but  never  one  against 
the  interest  of  the  merchant  I 


SECTION  III. 

As  the  basis  for  our  third  argument,  we  subjoin  the 
following: — "And  now,  why  tarriest  thou?  arise,  and  he 
baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins  calling  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord.'' 

Candidly,  it  would  seem  to  be  useless  to  do  more  than 
merely  quote  this  passage.  To  misunderstand  it  may 
not  be  impossible?;  but  how  its  import  is  to  be  rendered 
more  obvious  by  comment,  it  is  difficult  to  see.  And  to 
attempt  to  defend  it  against  the  cavils  of  those  who 
have  resolved  to  reject  its  teaching  would  be  an  idle  con- 
sumption of  time.  Still,  the  passage  is  too  important  to 
be  merely  quoted  and  then  dismissed. 

There  is  no  diversity  of  opinion  between  Mr.  Jeter 
and  us  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  act  which  Paul 
was  commanded  to  perform.  It  is  agreed  on  both  sides 
that  his  baptism  was  real,  not  metaphorical.    Is  or  can 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  203 

there  be  any  doubt  that  the  term  ''sins"  has  here  its 
accustomed  sense.  These  jioints,  then,  may  be  dis- 
missed at  once.  Consequently,  the  only  remaining  ques- 
tion to  be  settled  is,  Tvhat  is  the  meaning  of  the  ex- 
pression ^'wash  away?''  or,  still  more  pertinently,  what 
connection,  if  any,  does  it  express  between  baptism  and 
remission  of  sins? 

That  the  expression  is  metaphorical  is  granted.  Sins 
are  not  washed  away :  they  are  remitted.  Upon  this  no 
controversy  can  arise.  But  what  is  there  in  the  ex- 
pression to  indicate  or  suggest  this?  The  term  rendered 
wash  away  is,  in  the  original,  a  strong  compound  verb 
which  in  its  simple  form  denotes  to  wash  merely.  Here, 
however,  it  is  compounded  with  a  particle  which  signi- 
fies from,  denotiug  the  separation  of  one  thing  from 
another,  and  which  has  its  force  represented  in  the  ex 
pression  by  the  term  away.  Hence,  in  its  compound 
form  the  verb  signifies,  not  to  wash  simply,  but  to  sepa- 
rate one  thing  from  another  by  washing.  It  implies  a 
separation,  and  expresses  how  it  is  effected. 

First,  then,  it  implies  a  separation :  and  this  is  indeed 
the  radical  conception  in  remission.  For  not  only  does 
the  term  remit,  in  its  underived  or  Latin  form,  as  well  as 
in  English,  signify  to  send  away,  send  from,  or  let  go,  (in 
which  evidently  the  conception  of  separation  is  essen- 
tially involved,)  but  such,  also,  is  the  exact  meaning  of 
the  Greek  word  which  remit  translates.  Indeed,  how 
one  thing  can  be  washed  away  from  another,  without 
being  separated  from  it,  is  not  conceivable.  Hence,  we 
conclude  that  separation — i.e.  of  sins,  or  remission — is 


204  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


the  radical  conception  in  the  expression, — the  thing  for 
"which  it  stands. 

Second:  but  not  only  does  the  expression  imply  a 
separation;  it  expresses  how  it  is  eifected, — namely,  by  a 
washing.  Separation  is  its  radical,  unfigurative  mean- 
ing, the  thing  it  denotes;  and  the  metaphor  consists  in 
this : — that  the  separation  is  rejoresented  as  effected  by, 
or  depending  on,  a  washing,  which,  it  is  hardly  necessary 
to  add,  consisted  in  being  baptized. 

But  this  view,  in  effect,  represents  Paul  as  being  com- 
manded to  be  baptized  and  thereby  to  separate  himself 
from  his  sins.  Xor  can  the  view  be  deemed  far  from 
correct  when  it  is  remembered  that  ajjolousai  {arMouaaC) 
is  middle,  and  is  hence  to  be  construed  as  having  this 
force.  But  how  is  it  that  a  person  can  se2:)arate  himself 
from  his  sins,  when  in  reality  they  are  separated  from 
him,  or  remitted,  as  an  act  of  mercy,  hy  our  'heavenly 
Father?  Clearly,  by  complying  with  the  conditions, 
and  in  this  way  alone,  on  w^hich  the  separation  depends. 

Since,  therefore,  the  conception  which  lies  at  the  very 
bottom  of  the  expression  in  hand  is  separation,  and 
since  this  is  the  radical  idea  in  remission,  we  conclude 
that  the  exact  and  full  force  of  the  joassage  is.  Arise, 
and  be  baptized,  and  thereby  separate  yourself  from 
your  sins, — ^put  them  away;  or,  (which  is  evidently 
the  sense-)  Arise  and  he  haptizedj  and  your  sins  shall  be 
remitted. 

But  perhaps  a  similar  expression — similar  because 
metaphorical  and  of  the  same  signification — may  assist 
us  in  understanding  the  language  of  Ananias.  That  the 
expressions  blot  out  and  wash  away  sins  have  exactly 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  205 


the  same  import  no  scholar  or  critic  will  deny.  The 
only  distinction  between  them  is,  that  what  is  repre- 
sented by  the  one  as  being  blotted  out  is  represented  b}- 
the  other  as  being  ivashed  away.  They  do  not  represent  ♦ 
different  things,  but  express  the  same  thing  differently. 
Xow,  when  Peter  in  Solomon's  porch  said  to  the  people, 
'^Eepent  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted 
out,"  metaphor  aside,  what  did  he  mean?  Obviously, 
Eepent  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  remitted. 
Precisely  thus,  then,  must  we  interpret  the  expression 
wash  away  thy  sins, — namely,  Ai'ise  and  be  baptized,  and 
your  sins  shall  be  remitted.  The  two  expressions  are 
identical  in  sense,  their  interpretation  the  same. 

When  we  view  baptism  as  a  condition  on  which  re- 
mission of  sins  depends,  we  have  no  difficulty  in  under- 
standing the  language  of  Ananias.  Paul's  sins  were 
not  remitted  before  his  baptism.  Hence,  iVnanias  com- 
manded him  to  be  baptized  and  wash  them  away.  But 
when  he  complied,  then  God,  for  Christ's  sake,  remitted 
them;  and,  because  the  remission  was  made  dependent 
on  the  baptism,  the  sins  remitted  are  represented  as 
being  washed  away  in  it.  This,  to  a  person  of  candor 
and  common  sense,  can  hardly  be  said  to  admit  of  dispute. 

When,  on  a  subsequent  occasion,  Paul  said  to  the 
Philippian  jailer.  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou 
shalt  be  saved,  Mr.  Jeter  has  no  difficulty  in  discovering 
the  intimate  dependence  of  salvation  on  belief.  Xor  can 
he  deny  the  conditional  nature  of  belief.  He  can  see  no 
more  natural  fitness  in  it  to  procure  remission  than  he 
can  in  the  act  of  being  baptized.  And  yet  when  Ananias 
says  to  Paul,  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy 

18 


206  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

siris,  jsLr.  Jeter  can  see  no  dependence  of  remission  on 
baptism,  can  see  in  it  nothing  which  renders  it  necessar}^, 
even  as  a  condition,  to  remission.  But  an  adverse  light 
to  !Mr.  Jeter's  creed  has  a  singular  effect  on  his  vision. 

But  let  us  suppose  his  theory  of  remission  to  bo 
correct.  Paul's  sins,  then,  were  remitted  the  instant  in 
which  he  believed,  and  consequently  before  his  baptism. 
At  that  time,  therefore,  his  sins  had  no  existence  what- 
ever. They  were  simply  a  nonentity.  Indeed,  he  had 
no  sins, — hence,  none  to  be  remitted,  none  to  be  washed 
away,  none  to  be  disposed  of  in  any  sense.  And  yet 
Ananias,  the  Lord's  special  messenger,  is  represented  as 
saying  to  him.  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away 
thy  sins!  Did  Ananias,  we  ask  in  the  name  of  truth, 
command  Paul  to  be  baptized  and  wash  away  his  sins 
when  absolutely  he  had  not  one  sin  remaining?  If  the 
theory  of  Mr.  Jeter  is  correct,  it  casts  over  the  deed  of 
Ananias  a  painful  suspicion;  but,  if  the  language  of 
Ananias  is  true,  it  brands  the  theory  of  ]\Ir.  Jeter  as  a 
human  invention  and  false. 

Mr.  Jeter  has  a  symbolic  theory  of  baptism,"  by  which, 
in  a  very  few  words,  he  disposes  of  the  present  passage, 
which  will  be  noticed  in  another  place. 

SECTION  IV. 

The  passage  on  which  we  make  our  fourth  argument 
is  the  folloAving: — "According  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us  by 
the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

In  regard  to  the  expression  reneiving  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
there  exists,  we  believe,  little  or  no  diversity  of  opinion. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  207 


With  one  consent,  it  and  the  expression  begotten  hy  the 
Spirit  are  allowed  to  be  identical  in  sense.  If  they  are 
notj  the  distinction  between  them  may  be  said  to  bo 
this, — that  begotten  by  the  Spirit  expresses  the  fact  sim- 
ply, while  the  other  is  rather  descriptive  of  it,  it  being 
a  renewing. 

Of  this  effect  or  renew^ing  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
author;  hence,  it  is  called  a  renewing  of — i.e.  effected  by 
— the  Spirit.  It  commences  in  the  enlightenment  of  the 
mind,  and  results  in  a  deep  and  earnest  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.  It  comprehends  all  betweeij  the  entrance  of  the 
first  ray  of  heavenly  light  into  the  mind  of  the  sinner 
and  his  first  overt  act  of  obedience.  It  is  a  renewing  of 
the  sinner  in  the  inner  man,  the  effects  of  which  become 
apparent  in  his  outward  conduct;  and,  without  it,  no  act 
which  he  can  perform  can  be  truly  styled  an  act  of  obe- 
dience. Its  importance  cannot  be  too  weightily  empha- 
sized, nor  can  too  much  zeal  be  shown  in  urging  the 
.Truth  upon  the  sinner's  attention  through  which  it  is 
effected. 

But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  expression  washing  of 
regeneration?  That  it  refers  to  baptism,  or  is  another 
and  descriptive  name  for  it,  is  almost  universally  con- 
ceded. This  much,  then,  we  might  fixirly  take  for 
granted.  But  this  is  not  the  question.  The  question  is 
not,  what  does  it  refer  to,  but  what  is  its  meaning?  On 
this  point  nothing  is  allowed  to  be  taken  for  granted;  but 
why  ?  Is  it  because  the  expression  has  an  uncertain  mean- 
ing? This  is  not  the  reason.  Is  it  because  its  structure  is 
so  involved  as  to  hide  its  meaning?  Not  at  all.  Or  is  it 
an  unusual  form  of  speech,  which  refuses  to  yield  its  sense 


203 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


by  the  common  laws  of  language  ?  By  no  means.  It  con 
tains  a  meaning  which  is  not  acceptable.   This  is  the  reason. 

The  only  difficulty  in  the  expression  seems  to  lie  in 
deciding  whether  the  washing  named  in  it  belongs  to 
regeneration  as  an  integral  part  of  it,  and  therefore  as 
essential  to  it,  or  whether  it  is  not  a  washing  suhsequmt 
to  regeneration,  and  hence  no  part  of  it, — in  a  word, 
the  washing  of  a  person  already  and  completely  regene- 
rated. Those  who  adopt  the  latter  view  separate  the 
expression,  making  the  term  washing  refer  to  one  thing, 
and  the  term  regeneration  to  another;  while  those  who 
adopt  the  former  view,  regard  the  whole  expression  a3 
only  a  complex  name  for  baptism,  and  hence  as  insepa- 
rable; and  this  view  we  think  to  be  unquestionably  the 
correct  one.  For,  if  the  expression  be  separated,  to 
what,  first,  refers  the  word  icashing?  To  baptism,  re- 
spond the  talent  and  learning  of  Christendom.  From 
this  there  is  hardly  a  dissenting  voice.  But  to  what, 
second,  refers  the  term  regeneration?  To  this  absolutely 
no  answer  can  be  given.  It  cannot  refer  to  being  he- 
gotten  by  the  Spirit,  for  this  is  expressed  by  the  clause  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Spirit :  it  cannot  refer  to  baptism,  for 
this  is  represented  by  the  word  icashing.  Indeed,  accord- 
mg  to  this  view,  it  is  simply  an  unmeaning  redundancy 
with  neither  sense  jn  it  nor  reason  for  its  presence. 

But  a  little  attention  to  the  structure  of  the  expres- 
sion, especially  to  its  sense,  will  assure  us  not  only  that 
it  is  not  separable,  but  that  the  term  ''regeneration"  is 
a  mere  epithet,  serving  to  qualify  the  preceding  word 
^'washing."  And  this  is  according  to  a  well-known 
principle  in  the  Greek  language.    Xouns  in  the  geni- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


209 


tive  case  (is  the  principle)  are  often  used  in  the  sense 
of  adjectives  to  express  the  qualities  of  both  persons 
and  things.  This  is  clearly  the  principle  according  to 
which  the  expression  is  to  be  resolved  or  cleared  of 
difficulty.  The  following  instances  are  subjoined  as 
illustrative  of  the  principle.* 

1.  Take  heed,  brethren,  lest  there  be  in  any  of  you  an 
evil  heart  of  unbelief.  Here  the  word  unbelief"  is,  in 
the  original,  in  the  genitive,  and  is  correctly  repre- 
sented in  English  by  an  adjective,  thus : — an  evil  un- 
believing heart.    And  so  of  the  remaining  instances. 

2.  And  I  say  to  you,  Make  to  yourselves  friends  of  the 
mammon  of  unrighteousness: — the  unrighteous  mammon. 

3.  For  this  cause  God  gave  them  up  to  vile  affections  : 
— affections  of  vileness,  in  the  Greek. 

4.  When  ye,  therefore,  shall  see  the  abomination  of 
desolation: — the  desolating  abomination. 

•  5.  And  the  lord  commended  the  wn/ws^  steward : — in 
the  original,  steward  of  injustice. 

6.  But  whoso  looketh  into  the  perfect  law  of  liberty, 
and  continueth  therein,  he  being  not  a  forgetful  hearer : 
— in  the  Greek,  a  hearer  of  for getfulness. 

7.  Which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers 
washings,  and  carnal  ordinances : — in  the  original,  ordi- 
nances of  flesh. 

8.  The  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,  the  spirit  that 
now  worketh  in  the  children  of  disobedience, — the  dis- 
obedient children. 


*  It  is  proper  to  state  that  the  principle,  not  being  of  universal  applica- 
tion, is  to  be  applied  with  caution. 

18-*  0 


210  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


Bat  these  instances  are  enough.  Xow,  precisely  as 
the  genitive  is  used  in  these  instances  is  it  used  in  the 
expression  now  in  hand,  thus  : — According  to  his  mercy 
he  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  i^egeneration — or,  con- 
verting the  term  ^^regeneration"  into  an  adjective,  a 
regenerating  washing — and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

By  the  phrase  ^^regenerating  washing"  is  not  meant 
a  washing  which  implants  any  holy  principle  in  the 
heart,  or  which,  in  any  other  way,  morally  affects  the 
inner  man ;  but  merely  a  washing  which  completes  the 
new  birth.  The  epithet  regenerating"  is  objection- 
able, we  grant,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  liable  to  be  mis- 
construed. It  is  here,  however,  employed  merely  to  illus- 
trate the  principle  and  for  the  want  of  a  better  term. 

That  the  conclusion  just  arrived  at  is  correct  may  be 
inferred,  further,  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  expression 

washing  of  regeneration.^^  This  may  be  invariably 
set  down  as  decisive  against  the  correctness  of  a  ren- 
dering. Xot  that  a  rendering  can  be  inferred  to  be 
correct  from  its  not  being  ambiguous ;  but,  from  its 
being  ambiguous,  its  incorrectness  may  be  certainly  in- 
ferred. That  the  expression  is  ambiguous  is  evident 
from  the  uncertain  import  of  the  particle — of — which  it 
contains.  First,  it  may  mean  a  washing  effected  by  re- 
generation; or,  second,  a  washing  belonging  to  it  as 
part  of  it;  or,  third,  a  washing  performed  on  it, — i.e. 
the  subjects  of  it.  The  particle  of  has  all  these  accep- 
tations in  the  following  expressions  : — The  mark  of  a 
pen, — something  effected  by  it;  the  j^oint  of  a  pen, — 
something  belonging  to  it  as  part  of  it;  the  mending 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  211 

of  a  peii; — an  act  performed  on  it.  This  is  enough  to 
show  that  the  expression  is  ambiguous.  Hence,  we  infer 
the  preceding  to  be  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage. 

But  to  what  is  reference  made  ia  the  word  saved''? 
or  to  what  does  it  properly  apply?  First,  it  is  clear 
that  it  refers  to  a  salvation  then  past,  then  completed. 
Hence,  the  apostle  could  speak  of  it  as  a  matter  of  his- 
tory. Second,  that  it  is  the  salvation  which  occurred 
when  Paul  ceased  to  be  foolish,  disobedient,  deceived, 
&c.^^  Third,  that  it  is  the  salvation  which  depends  on 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  is  the  first  which 
happens  after  it.  But  what  is  this  but  the  remission 
of  sins  ?  This,  then^  we  conclude,  is  the  reference  in 
the  word,  or  the  thing  to  which  it  applies.  But  this 
salvation  depended  not  alone  on  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  For  he  saved  us  by  the  loashing  of  regenera- 
tion, one  thing,  and,  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  an- 
other. Hence,  the  washing  of  regeneration — or  bap- 
tism— is  essential  to  the  remission  of  sins,  or  is  one 
of  the  conditions  on  which  it  depends. 

But  it  is  proper  now  to  present  Mr.  Jeter's  expo- 
sition of  the  passage,  which  is  contained  in  the  follow- 
ing paragraph  : — "  The  phrase  'washing  of  regeneration' 
is  found  nowhere  in  the  Scriptures  but  in  the  text  cited 
from  the  epistle  to  Titus.  It  is  generally — not  univer- 
sally— supposed  to  signify  baptism.  That  it  does,  can- 
not be  proved.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  it  is  exegetical 
of  the  following  words  : — 'renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.' 
Eegeneration  is  called  a  washing,  because  it  is  a  moral 
cleansing;  and  this  washing  is  precisely  equivalent  to 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.    The  text  may  be 


212 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


rendered  ^the  washing  of  regeneration,  eveti  {xa:)  the 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  The  Greek  particle  xat 
is  frequently  rendered  'even'  in  the  Xew  Testament: 
Matt.  viii.  27 ;  xxv.  29 ;  Mark  vi.  12,  &c.  But,  so  for 
as  this  argument  is  concerned,  I  will  admit  that  the 
words  '  washing  of  regeneration'  mean  baptism." 

In  this  paragraph  occur  some  two  or  three  matters  on 
which  we  shall  dwell  for  a  moment. 

First.  '*It  [the  phrase,  washing  of  regeneration]  is 
generall}' — not  universally — supposed  to  signify'  bap- 
tism.  That  it  does,  cannot  be  proved.  My  own  opinion 
is,  that  it  is  exegetical  of  the  following  words  : — renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  general"  belief,  then,  according  to  Mr.  Jeter,  is, 
that  the  icashing  of  regeneration  signifies  baptism.  This, 
in  other  words,  is  the  belief  of  the  learned  world, — the 
orthodox  belief;  and  yet  he  dissents  from  it.  But 
why?  Had  this  belief  and  ours  differed,  would  he  have 
dissented  ?  There  is  something  singularly  perverse  dis- 
played by  him  in  treating  this  and  some  other  passages. 
When  the  orthodox  belief  and  ours  differ,  he  grows 
clamorous  and  urgent  for  the  authority  of  orthodoxy; 
but  when  the  orthodox  belief  and  ours  agree,  then  he 
dissents  from  both.  "Vi'e  have  piped  to  you  and  you 
have  not  danced,  we  have  mourned  and  you  have  not 
lamented,"  is  a  severe  description  of  hypocritical  folly. 

Second.  '^Eegeneration  is  called  a  washing,  because  it 
is  a  moral  cleansing;  and  this  washing  is  precisely 
equivalent  to  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

But  regeneration  is  not  called  a  washing  in  this  or 
any  other  passage  in  the  Bible.    The  assertion  is  not 


REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


213 


true.  It  is  merely  ^^my  opinion.'^  The  passage  neither 
asserts  nor  imj)lies  that  regeneration  is  a  washing.  On 
the  contrary,  it  represents  the  washing  as  being  a  wash- 
ing of  regeneration,  and  hence  not  regeneration  itself. 
It  is  a  washing  of — i.e.  belonging  to — regeneration  as  part 
of  it, — something  essential  to  it,  without  which  it  is  in- 
complete ;  but  it  is  not  regeneration  itself.  .The  part  of 
a  thing  is  not  the  whole. 

Third.  "The  text  may  be  rendered,  the  washing  of 
regeneration  even  (xai)  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.'' 

Certainly  it  may  he  so  rendered;  and  so,  falsely,  may 
every  other  passage  in  the  Bible.  But  it  cannot  be 
correctly  rendered  and  be  rendered  thus.  Mr.  Jetei-'s 
criticism  is  utterly  faulty.  It  rests  on  no  principle 
whatever.  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  particle  xa:, 
on  which  it  turns  ?  Literally  and  primarily  it  means 
and.  This  is  universally  conceded.  Kow,  in  trans- 
lating, the  most  sacred  rule  in  use  is  this  : — to  translate 
a  word  uniformly  by  its  literal  and  current  meaning, 
unless  the  sense  forbids  it.  But  does  not  the  sense  of 
the  present  passage  forbid  the  literal  and  current  mean- 
ing of  xac.  If  so,  why  did  Mr.  Jeter  not  point  it  out? 
He  knew  positively  that  it  did  not,  and  yet  he  rendered 
the  particle  even,  and  in  so  doing  violated  the  most 
sacred  rule  known  to  the  science  of  interpretation. 

True,  the  particle  is  rendered*  even  in  the  passages  to 
which  he  refers;  but  on  what  ground?  Simply  on  the 
ground  that  the  sense  forbids  the  literal  and  current  mean- 
ing, and  hence  requires  a  different  one.  This  becomes 
evident  by  merely  inserting  the  literal  meaning,  thus ; 


214  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  F.XAMINED. 

• — ^'"Wliat  manner  of  man  is  this,  that  and  the  winds 
and  the  sea  obey  him?"  Matt.  viii.  27.  Clearly,  this  is 
wrong.  The  sense  forbids  the  use  of  and,  and  hence  re- 
quires another  word.  Ey  inserting  even  we  see  what 
word  it  is,  thus: — "What  manner  of  man  is  this,  that 
even  the  winds  and  the  sea  obey  him?"  and  so  of  the 
other  passages  referred  to.  But  we  cannot  produce  a 
jar  like  the  preceding  by  the  use  of  and  in  the  passage 
from  Titus.  We  can  read,  in  harmony  with  the  great 
rule  just  stated,  "He  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  re- 
generation and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Sj^irit,"  and  the 
reading  is  smooth,  the  sense  good,  and  the  mind  pro- 
foundly- convinced  that  we  read  correctly.  The  very 
circumstance  which  requires  the  particle  to  be  rendered 
even  in  the  j^assages  referred  to  is  wanting  in  the  present 
one;  hence  to  substitute  even  for  and  in  it  is  wholly 
unauthorized. 

SECTION  V. 

Our  fifth  argument  is  suggested  by  the  following : — 
Wherein  [the  ark]  few,  that  is  eight,  souls  were  saved  by 
water.  The  like  figure  ivhereunto,  even  baptism,  doth  also 
now  save  us, — not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh, 
hut  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards  GodJ' 

This  passage  (so  exceedingly  obscure  in  the  form  here 
cited)  is  susceptible  of  a  much  more  intelligible  render- 
ing, thus: — In  which  (ark)  a  few,  that  is  eight,  souls  were 
saved  by  water,  which  also  now  saves  us  in  its  antitype,  bap- 
tism, which  consists  not  in  putting  away  fleshly  impurity,  bid 
in  seeking  a  good  conscience  in  God.  This  rendering  is  ac- 
cording to  thj  best  text  of  the  Greek  New  Testament 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


215 


extant.  A  few  additional  remarks,  however,  explana- 
tory of  it,  will  not  be  thought  amiss. 

According  to  the  common  text,  antitype  is  the  subject 
of  the  verb  saves.  This,  however,  is  now  regarded  as  in- 
correct; and  the  true  subject  is  held  to  be  the  relative 
pronoun  o.  Such  is  the  case  in  the  text  now  before  us. 
With  this  relative  antitype  is  in  apposition,  and  bap- 
tism with  antitype;  and,  although  a  somewhat  unusual 
apposition,  yet  it  is  attended  with  no  ambiguity.  The 
relative  is  in  the  neuter  gender,  agreeing  with  water  as 
its  antecedent, — the  only  noun  in  the  sentence  with 
which  it  can  agree. 

The  terms  rendered  putting  away  and  seeking  are  both 
in  the  nominative  case,  and,  since  no  verb  is  expressed, 
of  course  to  or  after  one  understood.  That  this  is  the 
verb  is,  hardly  admits  of  doubt.  It  is  not  necessary, 
however,  in  order  to  express  the  sense  of  the  passage,  to 
be  so  slavishly  literal  as  to  indicate  these  circumstances. 
Hence,  in  our  rendering,  we  have  not  done  so. 

But  on  what  ground  have  Ave  substituted  the  word 
seeking  for  the  word  ansicer?  ATe  reply,  first,  there  is  a 
necessity  for  it;  for  the  passage,  as  it  now  stands  in  the 
common  version,  conveys  no  intelligible  meaning  what- 
ever; indeed,  it  is  simply  a  jumble  of  words  without 
meaning.  Second,  it  agrees  better  with  the  sense  of  the 
original  term.  The  verb  from  which  the  original  term 
is  derived  occurs  in  the  Greek  New  Testament  fifty- 
nine  times;  in  fifty-five  of  which  it  is  rendered  either 
Jpy  the  word  ask  or  by  some  of  its  forms ;  in  two,  de- 
manded; in  one,  desired;  and  in  one,  questioned;  and 
in  every  single  case  should  have  been  rendered  either 


216  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

by  ask  or  by  some  of  its  forms.  ^^To  seek  aftef  is 
given  as  one  of  the  meanings  of  the  verb,  in  the  best 
lexicon  to  the  Greek  Testament  we  have  yet  seen. 
Hence,  the  noun,  retaining  substantially  the  same  sense, 
must  mean  either  an  asking  or  a  seeking;  and,  since 
seeking  gives  a  clearer  and  better  sense,  we  therefore 
decide  in  its  favor.  Asking  is  applicable  rather  to  per- 
sons than  to  things ;  hence  it  is  better  to  say  of  baptism 
it  is  a  seeking  than  an  asking. 

But  why  substitute  in  for  towards?  We  answer, 
Because  it  gives  a  clearer  sense  and  accords  better  with 
the  usage  of  the  Greek  particle.  That  it  gives  a  clearer 
sense  is  obvious  at  a  glance,  and  hence  needs  no  further 
illustration.  The  particle  in  the  Greek  is  eiq,  which 
seems  to  have  the  sense  of  (ev)  in :  not  that  er?  is  used 
for  ev;  but  there  appears  to  be  the  idea  of  previous 
motion  combined  with  a  state  of  rest,  in  which  case  ei^ 
has  the  force  of  ev.  The  following  is  an  instance  of  this 
usage: — ^'And,  leaving  Nazareth,  he  came  and  dwelt 
(eiq)  in  Capernaum."  In  such  cases  the  previous  motion 
is,  by  the  best  critics,  supposed  to  have  suggested  the 
use  of  £.'<r;  the  real  force  of  the  passage  being,  And, 
leaving  Nazareth,  he  came  (si^)  into  Capernaum,  and 
dwelt  there.  Again,  the  passage  itself  in  hand  supplies 
an  instance  of  the  usage.  Noah  entered  into  (previous 
motion)  the  ark;  hence  he  is  represented  as  having 
been  saved  (s;?)  in  it.  In  the  same  manner,  the  pre- 
vious use  of  baptism  seems  to  have  suggested  the  use 
of  ££c,  which  we  have  rendei*ed  in  instead  of  towards. 
We  are  baptized  (ec?)  into  Christ ;  hence  in  him  we  are 
all  said  to  be  one.    We  are  bajDtized        into  the  name 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  217 

of  the  Father;  hence  we  dwell  (ev)  in  him.  Conse- 
quently, since  it  is  by  baptism  that  we  enter  into  him, 
it  would  seem  highly  proper  to  represent  it  as  consist- 
ing in  seeking  a  good  conscience  (sf?)  in  him,  especially 
when  we  have  full  authority  for  such  a  use  of  the 
particle. 

The  preceding  view  of  the  passage  has  at  least  this 
advantage, — that  it  is  perfectly  intelligible,  as  well  as 
consistent  with  what  we  know  to  be  taught  elsewhere ; 
and  although  it  is  here  rather  suggested  than  insisted 
on,  still,  we  believe  it  possessed  of  a  high  degree  of 
certainty. 

But  all  this  has  little  to  do  with  our  argument.  The 
ground  on  which  it  rests  is  asserted  in  the  common 
version, — namely,  ''Baptism  doth  also  now  save  us." 
From  this  it  is  clear  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  bap- 
tism saves  us,  or  a  salvation  which  depends  on  or  is 
effected  in  and  by  baptism.  The  question  is.  What  is 
it,  or  in  what  does  it  consist  ?  First,  it  cannot  be  sal- 
vation in  its  most  comprehensive  sense ;  for  it  is  limited 
to  baptism.  Second,  it  is  not,  be  it  what  it  may,  a  par- 
tial, but  a  complete,  salvation;  for  baptism  ^^now  saves 
us."  Hence,  previously  to  baptism  it  does  not  exist; 
subsequently  it  does :  but  without  baptism  it  cannot 
exist.  What,  now,  is  the  safest  and  fairest  method  of 
ascertaining  in  what  it  consists,  or,  since  the  passage 
asserts  the  fact  that  baptism  saves  us,  how  shall  we 
determine  in  what  sense  ? 

Clearly,  the  best  method  of  obtaining  a  correct  reply 
to  this  question  is,  to  ascertain  in  what  sense  the  word 
saved  is  used  when  used  in  connection  with  baptism,  or 

19 


218  REYIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  ' 

what  is  therein  accomplished  to  -which  the  vrord  is  ap- 
plicahlo.  Happily,  this  is  an  easy  task: — ''He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  "  Arise,  and  be 
baptized,  and  wash  aivay  thy  sins.'*  Jointly,  these  pas- 
sages determine,  definitely  and  conclusively,  that  the 
■word  "saved,"  when  used  in  connection  with  baptism, 
is  used  to  denote  remission  of  sins  ;  and  whatever  mean- 
ing it  certainly  has  in  these  passages  it  certainly  has  in 
every  other  precisely  similar  passage,  and,  consequently, 
in  the  present  one.  Hence,  baptism  doth  also  now  save 
us,  because  therein  our  sins  are  remitted.  Of  the  truth 
of  this,  little  doubt  can  remain,  when  it  is  remembered 
that  the  same  apostle  on  whose  language  we  are  now 
commenting  commanded  an  audience  to  rejDent  and  be 
baptized  in  order  to  remission  of  sins.  Hence,  it  may  with 
great  propriety  be  represented  that  baptism  consists  in 
seeking  a  good  conscience  in  God,  because  it  consists  in 
seeking  a  conscience  freed  from  sin. 

Of  this  passage,  Ht.  Jeter,  with  characteristic  shy- 
ness when  a  passage  disfavors  him,  says,  ''The  text 
above  cited  from  Peter  is  one  of  the  most  obscure  in  the 
apostolic  epistles.  Commentators  have  been  greatly 
perplexed  and  divided  concerning  its  ijnj^ort.  As  it  is 
not  necessary  for  my  purpose,  I  shall  not  attempt  to 
expound  it." 

1.  The  passage,  we  grant,  is  not  wholly  free  from 
difficulty;  but  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  obscure  in  the 
apostolic  epistles,  we  cannot  admit. 

2.  That  it  should  perplex  some  men  is  not  at  all  to 
be  wondered  at.  Passages  perplex  from  various  causes, 
some,  the  more,  the  less  obscure  they  are.    The  present 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  219 

passage  asser-ts  that  baptism  now  saves  us ;  hence,  how 
perplexing ! 

3.  Certainly  it  w^as  not  necessary  to  Mr.  Jeter's  pur- 
pose that  he  should  attempt  to  "expound"  the  passage; 
but  it  extremely  concerned  his  purpose  that  he  should 
let  it  alone.    He  has  shown  his  cunning  once. 

Eut,  as  containing  a  comment  generally  on  the  import 
of  the  term  salvation,  but  especially,  it  would  seem,  on 
its  import,  as  used  in  connection  with  baptism,  in  the 
passages  from  Titus  and  1  Peter,  we  shall  extract  from 
Mr.  Jeter  the  following  paragraphs : — 

"Do  these  Scriptures  [from  Titus  and  1  Peter]  teach 
that  the  sins  of  a  believer  are  remitted  in  the  act  of 
baptism?  This  is  the  question  under  discussion.  God 
saves  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  (baptism)  and  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Baptism  doth  also  now  save 
us." 

"The  term  salvation  is  of  comprehensive  import.  It 
denotes  the  whole  process  by  which  we  are  delivered 
from  sin  and  fitted  for  the  enjoyment  of  heaven.  It 
includes  a  thorough  moral  renovation,  the  remission  of 
sins,  adoption  into  the  family  of  God,  and  perseverance 
unto  death  in  the  way  of  holiness.  It  is  commenced  in 
repentence,  carried  forward  in  sanctification,  and  will 
be  completed  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dea'd.  The 
sincere  believer  in  Christ,  even  before  baptism,  is  in  a 
state  of  salvation,  but  his  salvation  is  incomplete.  'NoWj 
God  saves  us  by  all  the  means  which  he  employs  to 
instruct,  impress,  purify,  and  preserve  us.  The  written 
word,  the  ministry  of  the  word,  meditation,  prayer, 
baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  afflictions,  are  all  means  by 


220  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

which  God  saves  us.  "We  are  said  to  be  spved  by  faith, 
saved  by  hope,  to  save  ourselves  and  others :  1  Tim.  iv.  10 ; 
to  work  out  our  own  salvation,  Phil.  ii.  12.  Salvation  is 
promised  to  him  that  endureth  to  the  end :  iMatt.  xvi.  22. 
Christ  is  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  them  that 
obey  him:  Heb.v.  9.  And  we  are  saved  by  baptism. 
All  these  things  have  an  influence  in  securing  our  sal- 
vation,— are  among  the  means  by  which  God,  in  his 
mercy,  carries  on  and  completes  the  work.  Baptism, 
which  symbolizes  the  regenerating  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  is  a  public  and  solemn  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  remission  of  sins  through  faith  in  Christ, 
is  designed  and  fitted  to  separate  us  from  the  world,  im- 
press on  us  our  obligations  to  Christ,  and  aid  us  in  the 
pathway  to  heaven.  It  certainly,  however,  does  not 
follow  from  this  position  that  the  remission  of  sins  is 
suspended  on  the  act  of  baptism.  This  conclusion  is 
drawn  from  the  assumption  that  whatever  promotes  our 
salvation  is  essential  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins, — an 
assumption  manifestly  false.  He  that  endureth  to  the 
end  shall  be  saved;  but  is  the  believer  unpardoned  until 
he  finishes  his  race  ?  or  is  he  not  pardoned  at  the  com- 
mencement of  it?  Christians  are  exhorted  to  work  out 
their  own  salvation;  but  are  not  their  sins  forgiven  before 
the  completion  of  the  work?  We  are  saved  by  baptism, 
not  as  a  condition  of  obtaining  the  remission  of  sins, 
but  as  one  of  the  means  which  God  employs  to  perfect 
the  work  of  our  salvation, — a  means  not  indispensable 
to  that  result.'^ 

The  sole  design  of  this  truthless  paragraph  is  to  so 
mystify  the  word  salvation  as  to  render  the  passages 


REVIEW  OF  CAMrEELLISM  EXAMINED.  221 

from  Titus  and  Peter  in  which  it  occurs  of  no  avail  to 
us.  The  design  of  its  author  was  not  to  develop  the 
meaning  of  a  term;  but  to  confuse  and  pei'plex  it, — not  to 
render  a  great  point  clear,  but  to  exclude  a  distasteful 
light.  Having  transcribed  the  entire  paragraph,  we 
may  now  request  the  attention  of  the  reader  more  par- 
ticularly to  the  following  points : — 

1.  ^^The  term  salvation  is  of  comprehensive  im- 
port." Sometimes  it  is,  but  it  has  not  always  the  same 
extent  of  signification.  The  assertion  of  Mr.  Jeter  is 
true  in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  testimony  of  a  vzit- 
ness  is  true  who,  being  sworn  to  testif)^  to  the  whole 
truth,  suppresses  a  part  of  it.  When  Paul  says  the 
gospel  is  the  power  of  God  to  salvation  to  every  one 
that  believes,  he  employs  the  term  in  its  most  compre- 
hensive sense,  and  certainly  in  a  sense  much  more  com- 
prehensive than  when  he  says,  the  preaching  of  the 
cross  is  to  them  that  perish  foolishness;  but  to  us  who 
are  saved  it  is  the  power  of  God.  In  the  latter  case,  it 
is  limited  to  and  its  import  exhausted  by  an  event  then 
past,  a  process  then  completed;  but  not  so  in  the  former 
case. 

2.  ^^If'  (the  term  salvation)  denotes  the  whole  pro- 
cess by  which  we  are  delivered  from  sin  and  fitted  for 
the  enjoyment  of  heaven.'^  Does  it,  indeed,  always?  It 
is  charitable  to  hope  that  Mr.  Jeter  believed  the  assertion 
when  he  made  it,  but  it  is  very  certain  that  no  one  else 
who  bestows  upon  it  a  moment's  reflection  will  believe 
it.  Baptism  doth  also  now  save  us.'^  Does  the  term 
Here  denote  the  whole  process  by  which  we  are  delivered 

from  sin  and  fitted  for  heaven  ? 
19* 


222  REVIEW  OF  CA3IPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


3.  ^^It"  (salvation)  "is  commenced  in  repentance, 
carried  forward  in  sanctification,  and  will  be  completed 
by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.''  Salvation  is  com- 
menced in  repentance!  Xo  one  believes  it  who  under- 
stands either  the  operations  of  his  own  mind  or  the 
teachings  of  Christianity.  An  ignorance  in  the  ranks 
of  his  brethren,  profound  enough  to  accept  as  true  this 
and  like  sentiments,  is  what  has  contributed,  in  no  small 
degree,  to  give  to  Xr.  Jeter's  book  the  brief  inglorious 
notoriety  it  has  attained,  Nothing  more  clearly  shows 
how  much  both  he  and  they  have  yet  to  learn  than  the 
tenacity  with  which  they  cling  to,  and  the  frequency 
with  which  they  reaffirm,  this  absurd  dogma.  It  crops 
out  in  his  book  on  more  occasions  than  one.  Attention 
is  here  called  to  it,  not  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  it, 
but  merely  for  the  sake  of  giving  to  it  an  emphatic 
denial. 

4.  "ZSTow,  God  saves  us  by  all  the  means  which  he 
employs  to  instruct,  impress,  purify,  and  preseiwe  us. 
The  written  word,  the  ministry  of  the  word,  meditation, 
prayer,  baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  afflictions,  are  all 
means  by  which  God  saves  us.  We  are  said  to  be  saved 
by  faith, — saved  by  hope, — to  save  ourselves  and  others, 
— to  work  out  our  own  salvation.  Salvation  is  promised 
to  him  that  endureth  to  the  end.  Christ  is  the  author 
of  eternal  salvation  to  all  them  that  obey  him.  And 
we  are  saved  by  baptism." 

Kow,  granting  that  salvation  is  a  process  to  the  com- 
pletion of  which  foith,  hope,  baptism,  &c.  (the  items 
severally  enumerated  by  Mr.  Jeter)  are  necessary,  does 
it  still  follow  that  each  of  these  items  has  not  its  own 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPEELLISM  EXAMINED.  223 

Specific  value  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  general 
result, — a  function  to  perform  not  performable  by  any 
other? — ^in  a  word,  that  baptism  is  not  for  the  remission 
of  sins  ?  To  assume  that  it  does  so  follow,  is  to  assume 
the  very  point  in  dispute.  We  grant  that  salvation  is  a 
process,  but  still  maintain  that  the  exact  sense  in  which 
baptism  is  necessary  to  its  completion  is,  that  it  is  for 
the  remission  of  sins.  It  is  no  reply  to  this  position  to 
say  that  faith  and  hope  are  also  necessary  to  salvation. 
It  is  freely  granted  that  they  are,  but  not  that  they  are 
necessary  in  the  same  sense  in  which  baptism  is  necessary. 
To  assume  that  such  is  the  case,  is  just  as  erroneous  as 
to  assume  that,  since  life  is  a  process  to  which  eating, 
sleeping,  and  drinking  are  necessary,  a  man  lives  by 
sleeping  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  lives  by  eating. 
And  yet,  if  there  is  any  argument  in  the  preceding 
extract,  this  is  what  it  amounts  to. 

5.  Baptism,  which  symbolizes  the  regenerating  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  is  a  public  and  solemn 
acknowledgment  of  the  remission  of  sins  through  faith 
in  Christ,  is  designed  and  fitted  to  separate  us  from  the 
world,  impress  on  us  our  obligations  to  Christ,  and  aid 
us  in  the  pathway  to  heaven. 

That  baptism  symbolizes  the  regenerating  influence 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  a  naked,  unsupported  assertion. 
It  is  wholly  false.  No  evidence  exists  in  the  word  of 
God  of  its  truth.  Had  such  been  the  case,  Mr.  Jeter, 
whose  fondness  for  a  pedantic  array  of  texts  displays 
itself  even  on  the  most  trivial  occasions,  would  have 
saved  us  the  pains  of  seeking  that  evidence.  It  may  be 
an  article  in  his  creed,  but  it  is  not  a  doctrine  of  the 


224  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

Bible;  and,  while  fidelity  to  the  former  may  impel  him 
to  assert  it,  fidelity  to  the  latter  should  impel  all  honest 
men  to  reject  it.  Xor  can  less  than  this  be  said  of  the 
position  that  baptism  is  "a  public  and  solemn  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  remission  of  sins  through  faith  in 
Christ.''  Three  things,  and  only  three,  can  be  said  in 
its  defence.  It  is  asserted  by  Mr.  Jeter;  it  is  a  tradition 
of  his  church;  it  is  not,  in  so  many  words,  pronounced 
by  the  Bible  to  be  a  lie.    On  these  grounds  alone  it  rests. 

6.  ''It  certainly,  however,  does  not  follow  from  this 
position  that  the  remission  of  sins  is  suspended  on  the 
act  of  baptism.  This  conclusion  is  drawn  from  the 
assumption  that  whatever  promotes  our  salvation  is 
essential  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins, —  an  assumption 
manifestly  false." 

The  assumption  is  not  only  manifestly  false:  it  is 
manifestly"  foolish,  and  manifestly  the  assumption  of 
nobody  but  Jeter.  This  is  not  the  only  occasion  on 
which  he  has  constructed  a  foolish  hypothesis  for  us, 
and  then  sought  to  make  the  impression  that  some  doc- 
trine which  we  entertain  is  deducible  from  no  other 
ground.  It  would  have  been  fiir  more  honorable  in  him 
had  he  confined  himself  to  positions  which  we  do  enter- 
tain, and  not  have  feigned  for  us  those  which  we  do  not 
entertain,  merely  for  the  sake  of  deducing  from  them 
some  conclusion  which,  after  all,  renders  no  one  half  as 
ridiculous  as  himself. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


225 


SECTION  YI. 

The  passage  on  which  we  base  our  sixth  argument  is 
this  : — Verily  J  verily,  I  say  to  you,  Except  a  man  he  horn 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God.'' 

This  passage  we  regard  as  presenting  us  with  a  com- 
plete view  of  the  new  birth, — as  informing  us  in  what 
it  consists,  or  what  facts  constitute  it.  And,  whenever 
the  subject  of  regeneration  is  spoken  of,  we  wish  it  to 
be  distinctly  understood  that  the  present  passage  con- 
tains our  conception  of  it.  In  declaring  that  ''except 
a  man  be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God," 
the  Savior  merely  propounds  the  doctrine  of  the  new 
birth  generally,  in  a  statement  of  the  necessity  of  it. 
But  in  the  present  passage  he  states  definitively  in  what 
the  new  birth  consists,  reiterating  the  necessity  of  it. 
The  former  passage  propounds  the  doctrine,  the  latter 
passage  explains  it  That  to  be  born  again  ia,to  be 
born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  does  not  admit  of 
argument. 

The  passage  was  intended,  when  spoken,  to  have,  not 
a  present,  but  a  prospective,  bearing.  It  applied  at  the 
instant  when  the  ^lessiah's  kingdom  commenced,  and 
ever  afterwards,  but  not  a  moment  before. 

We  cannot  agree  that  the  importance  of  the  passage 
can  be  exaggerated.  When  the  Savior  shuts  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  against  all,  except  on  certain  condi- 
tions, those  conditions  become  of  transcendent  interest. 
Keither  flight  of  fancy  nor  fertility  of  imagination  can 

invest  them  with  an  unreal  importance. 

P 


226  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

The  passage  naturally  distributes  itself  into  two 
clauses,  each  clause  comprehending  an  integral  part  of 
the  new  birth,  and  the  two  parts  exhausting  the  sub- 
ject. These  clauses  are,  respectively,  horn  of  ivater,  born 
of  the  Spirit.  The  meaning  of  these  determined,  all  must 
agree  that  the  question,  In  what  does  the  new  birth  con- 
sist ?  is  settled.  As  the  latter  clause  has  already  been 
explained,  only  the  other  remains  to  be  examined. 
What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  the  expression  born  of 
waters 

In  order  to  decide  this  question,  we  must  decide, 
first,  the  previous  question, — In  what  acceptation  must 
we  take  the  language  of  the  expression  ? — a  literal  or  a 
figurative  ? 

This  question  can  be  discussed  best,  perhaps,  by  re- 
solving the  expression  into  the  two  simple  verbal  mem- 
bers which  compose  it, — to  wit :  born  of  and  ivater.  To 
some  this  division  may  seem  unnecessarily  minute.  "We 
do  not  think  it  so.  By  thus  breaking  down  the  expres- 
sion into  these  simple  members  its  parts  come  singly 
into  view,  by  which  means  each  can  be  subjected  to  a 
severer,  because  a  more  distinct,  examination. 

Upon  the  acceptation  in  which  we  are  to  take  the 
member  born  of,  no  diversity  of  opinion  exists.  It  is 
universally  agreed  to  be  metaphorical.  But  what  its 
meaning  is,  is  supposed  to  depend  on  the  acceptation  in 
which  the  term  water"  is  taken.  Are  we  then  to  take 
this  term  in  its  literal  and  ordinary  acceptation,  or  in  a 
figurative  sense?  In  the  latter  sense,  is  responded  by 
many.  Let  us  now  examine  the  hypothesis  implied  in 
this  response,  which,  being  concisely  expressed  in  tho 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


form  of  a  proposition,  is  this  : — Hie  term  '^icatef  is  figu- 
rative. This  is  a  tough  proposition.  It  has  led  its  ad- 
vocates into  great  extremes.  Xo  effort  has  ever  yet  been 
made  to  defend  it,  upon  which  the  stain  of  iniquity  does 
not  rest.  Conceived  at  first  in  a  spirit  of  unbelief,  it  has 
since  been  advocated  only  in  crime.  The  uncorrupted 
heart  spews  it  out  as  a  vile  conception,  and  the  scorn  of 
reason  lies  on  it.  Xot  until  the  mind  has  been  robbed 
of  its  independence  by  the  tyranny  of  some  human 
creed,  or  stricken  by  some  fatal  paralysis,  will  it  suffer 
the  noisome  thing  to  lodge  within  it.  But  it  is  proper 
to  subject  it  to  a  still  further  examination. 

Where  the  literal  and  cun^ent  acceptation  of  a  term 
happen  to  be  the  same,  as  is  the  case  with  the  term 
''water,"  the  presumption  is,  that  such  a  term,  wher- 
ever found,  is  used  in  that  acceptation.  And  such,  more- 
over, is  the  force  of  this  presumption,  that  nothing  can 
set  it  aside  except  the  most  stringent  necessity..  Either 
such  must  be  the  nature  of  the  case  about  which  the 
term  is  employed,  that  it  cannot  be  taken  literally,  or 
some  most  obvious  circumstance  must  attend  it,  indi- 
cating that  it  is  employed  metaphorically;  otherwise  it 
has  certainly,  in  every  single  instance  where  used,  its 
current  signification. 

But  is  not  the  nature  of  the  new  birth  such — the  case 
about  which  the  term  "water"  is  employed — as  to  for- 
bid the  term  being  taken  literally?  If  not,  then  it  has 
its  literal  sense.  Xow,  we  must,  of  course,  before  we 
can  infer  any  thing  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  know 
what  the  case  itself  is.  Here,  now,  at  the  veiy  outset, 
we  encounter  a  serious  difficulty.    For,  until  the  import 


228  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLTSM  EXAMINED. 

of  the  term  water"  is  settled,  the  meaning  of  the  new 
birth  remains  doiibtfah  This  term  forms  one  of  a  com- 
pact assembLige  employed  by  the  Savior  to  describe  the 
new  birth.  Until,  therefore,  we  settle  its  meaning,  we 
remain  ignorant,  to  the  full  extent  of  its  individual  sig- 
nification, of  what  it  serves  jointly  to  describe.  Hence, 
from  the  nature  of  that  thing  so  described  we  can  infer 
nothing  to  set  aside  the  literal  acceptation  of  the  term. 
In  the  literal  acceptation,  therefore,  it  stands. 

But  is  not  the  term  attended  by  some  obvious  cir- 
cumstance indicating  that  it  is  employed  metaphori- 
cally ?  That  it  is  not  is  evident  even  to  the  eye. 
Clearly,  it  was  not  the  Savior's  intention,  in  mention- 
ing water,  to  institute  a  comparison  between  it  and  any 
thing  else.  Had  such  been  the  case,  he  would  have  pre- 
ceded the  term  by  some  such  particle  as  like,  so,  or  as. 
He  does  not  say,  Except  a  man  be  born  likey  born  so,  or 
born  as;  but.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water.  Hence, 
comparison  is  out  of  the  question. 

l!^or  can  the  term  be  employed  metaphorically.  Of 
words  thus  used  (and  metaphor  is  limited  to  single 
words  unattended  by  any  sign  of  comparison)  there  are 
two  classes : — 1st,  such  as,  on  being  pronounced,  sug- 
gest their  meaning  instantl}';  2d,  those  in  which  the 
meaning,  even  after  they  are  pronounced,  remains  hid 
until  it  is  brought  out  by  some  added  explanation.  The 
following  are  instances  of  these  two  classes  : — 1st.  ^^Go 
ye  and  tell  that  fox,  Behold,  I  cast  out  devils,  and  I  do 
cures  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  the  third  day  I  shall 
be  perfected."  Here  the  word  "fox"  is  applied  to 
Herod  metaphorically  ]  yet,  on  hearing  it  pronounced, 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPEBLLISM  EXAMINED. 


220 


we  as  instantly  collect  its  meaning  as  had  the  Savior 
said,  Go  and  tell  that  cunning  monarch,  &c.  2d.  ^'De- 
stroy this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up.'^ 
In  this  instance  the  word  "temple"  is  employed  meta- 
phorically, and  its  meaning  is  completely  hid  until  it  is 
added,  ''but  he  spake  of  the  temple  of  his  body."  Xow, 
to  which  of  these  classes  (and  there  are  no  others)  does 
the  term  ''water"  belong?  Kot  to  the  former;  for,  on 
being  pronounced,  it  suggests,  on  the  hypothesis  that  it 
is  metaphorical,  absolutely  no  meaning  at  all;  nor  yet 
to  the  latter,  for  no  explanatory  clause  is  added.  Hence, 
the  term  is  not  metaphorical. 

But,  again,  a  term  is  employed  metaphorically  when 
applied  to  a  thing  which  resembles,  in  one  or  more  re- 
spects, what  it  usually  denotes,  and  because  it  is  desired 
to  suggest  that  resemblance.  Now,  to  what,  supposing 
the  term  "water"  to  be  metaphorical,  is  it  applied,  in 
the  passage  in  hand,  which  resembles  the  material  ele- 
ment we  call  water.  The  human  mind  can  conceive 
of  nothing.  Yet  there  must  be  something;  for,  even 
granting  the  term  to  be  metaphorical,  it  still  has 
some  real  meaning;  but  what  it  is  will  never  be  deter- 
mined. 

From  all  the  preceding  premises,  therefore,  we  con- 
clude that  the  acceptation  in  which  the  term  "water" 
is  to  be  taken  is  its  literal  and  current  accejDtation ; 
that  it  denotes,  in  other  words,  simply  the  material  ele- 
ment we  call  water. 

It  is  proper  to  note,  however,  that  the  clause  "born 
of  water"  contains  a  metaphorical  term, — to  wit,  born. 
Literally,  this  term,  as  is  well  known,  denotes  the  event 

20 


230 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


■which  brings  man  into  the  present  hfe.  But  here  it  is 
employed  not  literally.  It  is  employed  metaphorically; 
and,  hence,  must  represent  an  event  which,  in  one  or 
more  respects,  resembles  its  literal  signification.  What, 
now,  is  that  event?  or,  without  separating  the  terms, 
what  signifies  the  expression  horn  of  water? 

1.  K  there  is  any  confidence  to  be  reposed  in  the 
talent  and  learning  of  all  ages  since  Christ,  this  question 
is  settled  : — the  expression  signifies  baptism  But  it  is 
proper  to  have  before  us  the  precise  point  to  which  this 
testimony  is  adduced.  It  is  not  adduced  to  settle  the 
value  or  meaning  of  baptism.  It  is  adduced  merely  to 
show  what  thing  the  expression  ''born  of  water"  denotes, 
not  what  ine  value  or  significance  of  that  thing  is. 
These  are  different  questions;  hence,  testimony  fully 
adequate  to  settle  the  one  might  be  very  inadequate  to 
settle  the  other. 

2.  "Water  is  never  present  in  any  act  connected  with 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  except  one.  But  in  that  one  it  is 
always  present,  and  from  it  never  absent.  That  act  is 
baptism.  But  in  the  expression  ''born  of  water,"  water 
is  present.  Hence,  it  must  be  in  baptism,  since  water 
can  be  present  in  nothing  else.  Baptism,  therefore, 
must  be  the  thing  denoted  by  the  expression  horn 
of  water. 

3.  The  term  horn  is  metaphorical ;  yet  it  must  signify 
something  which,  in  one  or  more  respects,  resembles  its 
literal  meaning.  This  something,  moreover,  must  be 
connected  with  water.  Xow,  in  all  Christianity,  what 
is  there  which,  even  in  one  respect,  bears  the  slightest 
resemblance  to  the  Hteral  meaning  of  "born,"  except 


REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  231 

baptism?  In  baptism  we  come  out  of  the  water,  and  that 
to  live  a  new  life.    Is  not  this  being  born  of  water  ? 

4.  If  the  expression  ^^born  of  water''  does  not  signify 
baptism,  then  its  meaning  is  wholly  indeterminate. 
Hence,  no  living  man  can  say  Avhether  he  is  or  is  not  in 
the  kingdom  of  God.  But  the  Savior  never  intended  to 
leave  man  in  doubt  on  so  vital  a  question.  AVe  hence 
infer  that  the  expression  is  determinate,  and  signifies 
baptism. 

It  is  now  easy  to  complete  our  argument.  There  are 
but  two  kingdoms  on  earth  in  which  men  exist, — the 
kingdom  of  God  and  the  kingdom  of  Satan.  These  two 
kingdoms  are  separated  from  each  other  by  one  and  the 
same  line.  All  on  this  side  are  saints,  all  on  that  sin- 
ners; and  all  are  on  that  side  until  born  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit :  then,  all  thus  born  are  on  this.  We  can 
no  more  conceive  of  a  saint  in  the  kingdom  of  Satan 
than  we  can  of  a  sinner  in  the  kingdom  of  God;  nor 
can  we  any  more  conceive  of  a  saint  without  his  being 
born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit  than  we  can  of  a  sin- 
ner who  is.  The  instant  in  which  a  man's  sins  are  for- 
given he  passes  from  the  kingdom  of  Satan  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  But  he  passes  from  the  kingdom  of 
Satan  into  the  kingdom  of  God  the  instant  in  which  he 
is  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit.  Hence  in  that 
instant  his  sins  are  forgiven. 

But  let  us  suppose  a  part  of  this  to  be  denied.  Let 
us  suppose  it  to  be  maintained  that  a  man,,  though  born 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  might  still  be  in  the  kingdom 
of  Satan.  What  is  true  of  one  man  in  this  respect 
might  certainly  be  true  of  all.    Hence  all  men,  though 


232 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


born  again,  might  still  be  in  the  kingdom  and  under 
the  dominion  of  Satan.    Clearly,  this  is  false. 

From  all  of  which  we  conclude  that  a  man's  sins  are 
remitted  the  instant  in  which  he  is  born  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit,  or,  inverting  the  expressions,  the  instant 
in  which,  being  begotten  by  the  Spirit,  he  is  immersed. 

Finally,  in  order  to  establish,  if  possible,  still  more 
conclusively  the  identity  of  baptism  and  being  born 
of  water,  and  also  to  exhibit  the  perfect  agreement 
between  what  the  Savior  said  to  JSTicodemus  and  what 
he  taught  in  the  great  commission,  we  submit  the 
following : — He  that  believes  and  is  baptized  is  saved : 
he  is  therefore  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  Hence,  he  that 
believes  and  is  baptized-  is  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit;  for  otherwise  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God.  The  only  way  to  escape  the  force  of  this,  is  to 
deny  either  that  he  that  believes  and  is  baptized  is 
saved,  or  that  he  is  therefore  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

It  is  now  proper  to  examine  the  main  points  in  what 
Mr.  Jeter  has  to  say  on  the  present  passage.  Indeed, 
we  regret  that  the  length  of  his  disquisition  forbids  our 
transcribing  it  entire;  for  by  a  sensible  and  candid  man 
it  needs  only  to  be  seen  to  be  despised.  Even  from 
Mr.  Jeter  it  would  be  difficult  to  produce  any  thing  more 
corrupt.    Take,  for  example,  the  first  paragraph  : — 

^'The  reformers  quote  this  text  [John  iii.  with 
great  confidence  in  support  of  their  views.  Let  us  can- 
didly examine  it.  The  phrase  yzy^rfir^  udaroc; — born 
of  water — does  not  elsewhere  occur  in  the  Scriptures, 
Its  import  must  be  learned  from  the  language  itself, 
the  context,  and  the  current  teaching  of  revelation. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


233 


What  is  its  meaning  ?  Mr.  Campbell  maintains  that  it 
means  baj^tism,  and  founds  his  argument  for  baptismal 
remission  wholly  on  this  interpretation.  Concerning 
this  opinion  I  have  several  remarks  to  offer." 

Did  Mr.  Jeter  not  know,  when  he  said  Mr.  Camj)bell 
maintains  that  the  phrase,  born  of  water,  means  bap- 
tism, and  founds  his  argument  for  baptismal  remission 
wholly  on  this  interpretation,  that  he  was  deliberately 
uttering  in  the  face  of  the  world  what  is  not  true? 
Whatever  he  may  have  known  or  thought,  it  matters 
not :  he  has  done  so.  It  is  painful  to  have  to  speak  thus 
of  him;  but  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  suppress  the  truth 
in  order  to  avoid  saying  that  he  has  not  spoken  it.  On 
page  261  of  his  book  he  says,  I  will  now  endeavor 
briefly  to  show  that  the  passages  of  Scripture  princi- 
pally relied  on  by  ^Lr.  Campbell  for  the  support  of  his 
doctrine  utterly  fail  of  establishing  it.''  Kow,  let  the 
reader  note  that  Mr.  Jeter  is  going  to  examine  the  pas- 
sages principally  relied  on  by  ]Mr.  Campbell  to  support  his 
doctrine.  He  then  quotes  the  following: — 1.  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved.  2.  Eepent  and 
be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  3.  Jesus  answered,  Terily, 
verily,  I  say  to  thee.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God.  4.  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself 
for  it;  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the 
washing  of  water  by  the  word.  Of  which  Mr.  Jeter 
says,  "  This  text  is  adduced  by  Mr.  Campbell  with  great 
confidence  in  support  of  his  cherished  theory,  that  sins 

2C* 


234  REVIEW  OF  CAMPEELLISM  EXAMINED. 

are  remitted  in  the  very  act  of  immersion."  5.  Accord- 
ing to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regene- 
ration and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  6.  The  like 
figure  whereunto  even  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us 
(not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God)  by  the  re- 
surrection of  Jesus  Christ.  Here,  now,  are  no  less  than 
six  passages  on  which,  it  seems,  !Mr.  Campbell  principally 
relies  in  support  of  his  cherished  theory;"  and  yet  of 
the  single  clause  horn  of  water,  IMr.  Jeter  says,  Mr. 
Campbell  maintains  that  it  means  baptism,  and  founds 
his  argument  for  baptismal  remission  wholly  on  this 
interpretation  I 

Of  the  '^several  remarks"  offered  by  ^Ir.  Jeter  on 
Mr.  Campbell's  interpretation  of  the  clause  ''born  of 
water,"  we  shall  transcriVje  the  chief  parts  of  only  two 
or  three. 

First.  ''It  [the  position  that  the  phrase  "born  of 
water"  means  baptism]  makes  the  answer  of  Christ 
to  IS'icodemus  false.  The  kingdom  of  God  must  mean 
the  church  of  Christ  on  earth,  or  the  state  of  heavenly 
glory.  This  position,  it  is  presumed,  will  not  be  called 
in  question.  ^vTow,  it  is  not  true  that  none  enter  into 
the  visible  church  on  earth  who  are  not  born  of  the 
Spirit.  In  the  purest  churches  there  are  members  who 
are  not  regenerated.  In  the  apostolic  churches  there 
were  some  who  were  not  properly  of  them.  '  They 
went  out  from  us,'  said  John;  'but  they  were  not  of 
us ;  for,  if  they  had  been  of  us,  they  would  have  con- 
tinued with  us,' " 

isoW;  we  profoundly  believe  the  expression  "king- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


235 


dom  of  God/'  in  John  iii.  5,  means  the  church  of  Christ 
on  earth, —  taking  the  term  "church"  in  its  largest 
sense;  and  yet  we  assert,  that  into  that  kingdom  no 
man,  woman,  or  child  ever  yet  entered  unless  born 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit.  When  the  Savior  says  of  a 
thing  it  cannot  be,  we  pronounce  it  impossible.  And, 
as  to  "the  purest  churches"  containing  members  who 
are  not  regenerated, — which  may  be  the  case, — it  is 
easily  explained  on  the  simple  principle,  that  even  the 
purest  churches  are  not  wholly  pure.  But  this  is  not 
the  point  in  dispute.  The  Savior  does  not  say,  "  except 
a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  a  church  partly  pure  and  partly  not."  He 
is  speaking  not  of  a  church,  nor  of  churches,  but  of  the 
church.  A  man  may  be  in  a  church,  and  yet  not  in  the 
church ;  but  in  the  church  he  cannot  be  unless  born  of 
water  and  of  the  Spirit.  Nor  can  he  be  even  in  a 
church  of  Christ,  except  in  appearance  only,  unless  thus 
born.  Indeed,  the  very  language  of  John,  when,  in 
speaking  of  certain  members,  he  says,  "  They  went  out 
from  us,  but  they  were  not  of  us,"  clearly  implies  that 
they  had  been  members  not  in  reality  but  in  appearance 
only. 

Second.  "Nor  is  it  true,  that  none  enter  into  the 
heavenly  glory  who  are  not  baptized.  From  this  con- 
clusion, though  it  follows  legitimately  from  his  doc- 
trine, Mr.  Campbell  himself  recoils.  The  Savior's  decla- 
ration, then,  as  interpreted  by  the  reformers  and  many 
others,  is  not  true." 

Mr.  Campbell  does  not  believe  that  the  expression 
"  kingdom  of  God,"  in  John  iii.  5,  means  the  kingdom 


236 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPEELLISM  EXAMINED* 


of  ultimate  gloiy ;  neither  does  he  teach  that  none  will 
be  saved  except  those  who  enter  the  church  on  earth. 
On  the  contrary,  he  teaches  that  the  following  classes 
will  he  saved  without  entering  it:  —  1.  All  infants. 
2.  All  idiots.  3.  Many  heathens.  4.  Many  honest  peo- 
ple who  are  kept  in  profound  ignorance  of  their  duty 
by  the  teaching  of  such  men  as  Mr.  Jeter.  From  what 
doctrine,  then,  of  Mr.  Campbell,  does  the  "  conclusion'^ 
from  which  he  ^'recoils"  follow  so  legitimately?  The 
reply  is,  none.  All  Campbell  teaches  is,  that  none 
who  are  responsible,  and  to  whom  the  gospel  is  preached, 
can,  unless  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  enter  into 
the  church  on  earth;  and  that  those  who,  under  these 
circumstances,  refuse  to  enter  it,  have  no  assurance  that 
they  shall  ever  enter  the  kingdom  above. 

Third.  "  There  is  but  one  method  of  evading  this  con- 
clusion. It  is  sometimes  affirmed,  for  the  purpose  of 
avoiding  it,  that  a  man  cannot  constitutionally  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God  except  he  is  baptized,  and  born 
of  the  Spirit/' 

By  whom  it  is  so  affirmed  we  know  not ;  but  it  is  not 
by  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  brethren.  They  affirm  that  a 
man,  unless  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  cannot,  in 
any  sense,  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  They  neither 
say  constitutionally  nor  unconstitutionally ;  but,  unquali- 
fiedly, that  he  cannot  enter  at  all  unless  thus  horn. 

Fourth.  ^'If  the  phrase  ^born  of  water'  means  im- 
mersion,  the  passage  in  which  H  is  found  yields  no  sup- 
port to  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  remission.  K  the  king- 
dom of  God  means,  as  ^Ir.  Campbell  understands  it 
to  mean,  the  reign  of  Messiah  on  earth, — the  risible 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  23T 

churcli, — then  the  text  proves  merely  that  a  man  cannot 
enter  the  church  without  baptism,  and  leaves  the  sub- 
ject of  the  remission  of  sins  wholly  untouched. 

But  what  is  the  passage  in  which  the  phrase  is  found  ? 
It  is  this: — ^'Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  Now, 
this  text  certainly  teaches,  not,  simply,  that  a  man  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  without  being  born 
of  water,  but  that  he  cannot  enter  into  it  without  being 
born  of  both  water  and  the  Spirit.  But  does  it  leave 
the  subject  of  the  remission  of  sins  wholly  untouched  ? 
When  a  man  is  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  are  his 
sins  still  unremitted  ? 

Fifth.  "  So  far  as  this  passage  teaches  us,  a  man  may 
be  pardoned  before,  or  after,  as  well  as  in,  the  act  of  im- 
mersion. It  has  no  relevancy  to  the  subject  under  dis- 
cussion.'^ 

This  is  most  unfair.  So  far  as  the  passage  teaches 
a  man  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  without 
being  born  of  both  water  and  the  Spirit.  Now,  may 
he  be  pardoned  before  being  thus  born,  or  after,  as  well 
as  ivhen  thus  born?  This  is  the  question.  If  he  may 
be  pardoned  before  being  thus  born,  we  ask,  how  long 
before— one  year  or  ten — and  on  what  conditions  ?  or, 
if  he  may  be  pardoned  after,  how  long  after — ten  years 
or  fifty — and  on  what  conditions  ?  Will  Mr.  Jeter  favor 
the  world  with  an  answer  to  these  questions?  Mr. 
Campbell  argues  that  a  man  is  pardoned  the  instant  in 
whjch  he  is  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit, — the  instant 
in  which  these  two  events  are  jointly  consummated, 
and  consequently — since  to  be  born  of  water  is  to  be 


238  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

immersed — the  instant  in  which  he  is  begotten  by  the 
Spirit  and  immersed.  And,  unless  a  man  can  be  par- 
doned before  or  after  the  joint  happening  of  these  two 
events,  his  argument  is  overwhelming.  True,  being 
begotten  by  the  Spirit  is  precedent  to  being  immersed, 
but  then  the  value  of  each  depends  on  the  two  as  con- 
current, and  not  as  separate,  events. 

Sixth.  "But  what  does  the  text  under  discussion 
mean  ?  It  is  not  incumbent  on  me  to  show  its  mean- 
ing. I  have  proved  that  it  does  not  refer  to  baptism, 
and  that,  if  it  does,  it  fails  to  support  the  doctrine  of 
baiDtisr^al  remission:  this  is  sufficient  for  my  purpe«e. 
I  will,  however,  perform  a  work  of  supererogation.  I 
will  quote  on  this  subject  a  passage  from  a  sermon  of 
the  Eev.  James  Saurin,  formerly  pastor  of  the  French 
church  at  the  Hague,  celebrated  alike  for  his  learning, 
eloquence,  and  piety.  The  phrase,  says  this  incompa- 
rable writer,  to  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Si^irit,  is 
a  Hebraical  phi^aseology,  importing  to  be  horn  of  spiritual 
water. 

Whatever  Mr.  Saurin  may  have  been  in  leaniing  or 
in  eloquence  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  here.  He 
has  offered  an  insult,  in  the  instance  in  hand,  to  the 
word  of  God,  which  no  term  but  shocking  will  describe. 
Judging  from  the  present  specimen,  hi>  stands  alone  in 
this  respect,  the  gentlemen  excepted  who  cites  and 
indorses  his  lanojuao;e.  To  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit  imports  to  be  born  of  spiritual  water!  Kow,  let 
not  the  reader  conclude  from  this  that  3Ir.  Jeter  is 
impious  enough  to  ridicule  the  passage  or  daring  enough 
to  assert  outright  that  it  is  a  lie.    Such  is  not  the  case. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  239 

All  lie  means  is,  that,  when  the  Savior  says,  '^Except  a 
man  be  born  of  vater  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,"  neither  icater  nor  Spirit  is 
meant.  True,  the  Savior  says  icater  and  Spirit;  but 
then  Mr.  Jeter  knows  perfectly  that  he  meant  neither. 
Hence,  all  the  passage  means  is.  Except  a  man  be  born 
of  spiritual  water,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God! 

SECTION  VII. 

Our  seventh  argument  is  suggested  by  the  follow- 
ing:— "Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for 
it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing 
of  water  by  the  word.'' 

That  the  phrase  by  the  word  is,  in  construing  the  pas- 
sage, to  be  joined  with  the  verb  sanctify,  is  so  obviously 
true  that  nothing  need  be  urged  in  its  defence, — the 
proper  collocation  of  the  words  being,  Christ  also  loved 
the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that,  having  cleansed 
it  by  the  washing  of  water,  he  might  sanctify  it  by  the 
word.  ^'Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth:  thy  word  is 
truth."  The  following  rendering  of  the  passage  we 
extract  from  a  recent  work  exhibiting  in  many  respectp 
the  neatest  taste  and  most  accurate  scholarship: — 
"Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it, 
that,  having  purified  it  by  the  water  wherein  it  is  washed, 
he  might  hallow  it  by  the  indwelling  of  the  word  of 
God." 

But  what  signifies  the  ex^^ression  cleansed  it  by  the 
washing  of  water?    This  question  can  be  best  answered^ 


2i0 


EEVIEW  OF  CAjMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


perhaps,  by  determining  separately  the  signification  of 
the  clauses  washing  of  water,  and  cleansed. 

First,  then,  what  signifies  the  clause  washing  of  water? 
If,  as  was  urged  in  the  preceding  section,  there  is  any 
confidence  to  be  reposed  in  the  learning  and  discrimina- 
tion of  the  first  class  of  critics,  and  that,  too,  in  a  case 
in  which  no  interested  motives  can  be  presumed  to  have 
swayed  their  judgment,  this  question  is  settled.  The 
clause  signifies  baptism.  True,  Mr.  Jeter  feigns  to  think 
its  import  doubtful,  but  wh}",  none  can  mistake.  He  is 
pledged  to  oppose,  right  or  wrong,  whatever  favors  us; 
hence,  the  more  irrefragable  our  proof,  the  more  vehe- 
ment his  denial. 

That  the  term  water,  or,  more  correctly,  the  water,  as  it 
is  in  the  original,  has  here  its  hard  Saxon  meaning,  is 
not  a  disputable  point.  Joining  to  this  the  word  wash- 
ing, or,  better  still,  the  washing,  thereby  making  wash- 
ing of  or  in  the  water,  or  the  water  in  which  the  church 
(the  members  of  it)  has  been  washed,  can  any  one  whose 
soul  is  not  steeped  in  error  be  in  doubt  as  to  Avhat  the 
apostle  means? 

There  is  but  one  rite  under  Christ  to  which  water  is 
absolutely  in  all  cases  essential,  and  to  which  all  who 
5  re  members  of  his  church  have  submitted.  That  rite 
is  baptism.  Here,  however,  water  is  present, — water  in . 
which  the  church  is  washed;  hence,  since  the  church 
comes  in  contact  with  water  in  no  rite  but  baptism, 
baptism  is,  or,  rather,  of  necessity  must  be,  what  the 
apostle  refers  to  when  he  says  the  icashing  of  water. 

Second.  But  what  signifies  the  term  cleansed?  "We 
can  readily  understand  why  the  expression  washing  of 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


241 


•water  should  have  suggested  it;  but  the  question  is, 
"What  does  it  mean? — a  question  which  we  think  it  not 
difficult  to  answer.  In  the  original,  both  the  verb  and 
its  derivatives  signify  to  cleanse  or  purify  generally. 
But  the  present  is  not  a  general  but  a  special  cleansing, 
— a  cleansing  limited  to  persons,  and  effected  in  the  wash- 
ing of  water.  IN'ow,  in  what  special  sense  are  persons 
cleansed  in  the  washing  of  water?  Clearly,  they  are 
not  therein  cleansed  from  the  leprosy;  neither  therein 
is  any  error  corrected  or  vice  reformed.  Tliey  are  therein, 
cleansed  from  sin.  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away 
thy  sins.  Eepent,  and  be  baptized,  in  order  to  the  remis- 
sion of  sins.  These  passages  determine  most  conclusively 
in  what  sense  a  person  is  cleansed  in  the  washing  of 
water.  Three  times  certainly,  in  the  New  Testament, 
is  the  term  cleansing,  either  as  a  verb  or  noun,  employed 
to  express  a  cleansing  from  sin.  A  cleansing  from  sin, 
then,  is,  we  conclude,  precisely  what  is  effected  in  the 
washing  of  water. 

Of  the  much  that  'Mr.  Jeter  has  to  say  on  this  passage, 
but  little  is  worthy  of  notice,  and  even  that  little,  of  but 
slight  notice.  In  speaking  of  the  word  cleansed,  (p.  270,) 
he  says,  "In  one  place,  the  word  probably  refers  to  the 
removal  of  guilt  from  the  conscience  by  the  blood  of 
Christ.  (Heb.  ix.  14.)  In  every  other  passage  where  it 
relates  to  the  redemption  of  man  it  denotes  a  moral 
renovation.'^ 

The  object  of  this  assertion  is  to  create  the  impression 
that  the  word  cleansed  is  nowhere  in  the  Xew  Testament 
employed  to  signify  a  cleansing  from  sin,  and,  conse- 
quently, not  in  the  passage  in  hand.    But  the  following 

21  Q 


242 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


passages,  in  one  of  which  the  word  occurs  in  the  form 
of  a  noun,  in  the  other  in  that  of  a  verb,  (a  circumstance 
not  in  the  least  affecting  its  application,)  will  show  how 
much  confidence  is  to  be  reposed  in  the  assertion, — 
^'  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  son  cleanseth  us  from  all 
sin."  1  John  i.  7.  ^'But  he  that  lacketh  these  things  is 
blind,  and  cannot  see  far  off,  and  hath  forgotten  that  he 
■wsi8  purged  from  his  old  sins."  2  Pet.  i.  9. 

"If,''  says  Mr.  Jeter,  "the  phrase  washing  of  water 
means  baptism,  then  the  text  teaches,  not  the  remission 
of  sins  in  the  act  of  baptism,  but  rather  baptismal  re- 
generation and  sanctification.  At  any  rate,  it  will  be 
the  business  of  those  who  contend  for  that  meaning  of 
the  phrase  to  free  the  passage  from  a  consequence  which 
is  exceedingly  plausible,  if  it  is  not  legitimate.'' 

First.  The  "text"  does  not  ascribe  sanctification  to 
the  washing  of  water.  It  is  the  cleansing  alone  which 
is  effected  in  the  water.  Sanctification  is  ascribed  to 
the  word.  And  this  repels  a  plebeian  allusion  of  !Mr. 
Jeter  to  something  which  he  with  characteristic  grace 
styles  "fAe  Bethany  dialect." 

Second.  But  suppose  the  passage  does  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  regeneration  :  what  then  ?  Shall  tho 
passage  be  rejected  because  it  teaches  the  doctrine?  Or 
shall  we  attempt  to  make  it  teach  another  doctrine? 
If  the  passage  teaches  the  doctrine,  then  the  doctrine  is 
true.  Or  does  !Mr.  Jeter  set  himself  up  to  be  judge  of 
what  the  divine  woid  ought  to  teach,  and  then,  because 
it  does  not  teach  to  his  liking,  compel  it  to  teach  differ- 
ently? This  is  not  the  first  instance  in  which  this  im- 
plication has  escaped  his  pen.    He  too  clearly  reveals, 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


243 


on  more  occasions  than  one,  that  the  ground  of  his  faith 
is  not  the  Bible,  but  the  suggestions  of  his  corrupt  imagi- 
nation. His  creed  contains  but  a  single  article : — Where 
the  Bible  and  his  whims  agree,  the  Bible  is  true :  where 
the  Bible  and  his  whims  differ,  the  Bible  is  false. 

But  the  "text''  does  not  teach — even  conceding  that 
the  phrase  washing  of  water  signifies  baptism,  as  we 
profoundly  believe  it  does — what  Mr.  Jeter  affects  to 
think  so  "exceedingly  plausible."  Even  a  child  can  be 
made  to  understand  that  whatever  is  ascribed  to  the 
washing  of  water  or  baptism  is  ascribed  to  it  merely 
as  a  condition,  on  compliance  with  which,  whatever  is 
60  ascribed  is  conferred  by  our  heavenly  Father  as  a 
matter  of  grace  or  mercy.  A  position  so  obvious  as  this 
needs  no  further  comment. 


SECTION  VIII. 

Our  eighth  argument  is  derived  from  the  following  : — 
"jPor  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have 
jput  on  Christ.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is 
neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male,  nor  female:  for 
ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then 
are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  promise.'^ 

Certainly,  the  expression  "  in  Chrisf  is  not  to  be  taken 
literally;  and  yet  there  can  exist  little  or  no  doubt  as 
to  its  import  or  the  relation  which  it  expresses.  ISTow, 
we  maintain  that  the  very  fact  that  we  enter  into  Christ 
by  baptism,  or  into  the  relation  which  this  language  ex- 
presses, involves  the  connection  between  baptism  and 
the  remission  of  sins  for  which  we  contend. 


244  REYIEtV  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


That  the  instant  in  which  a  person  becomes  an  "heir 
according  to  jpromise,''  he  becomes  a  Christian,  or  is  for- 
given, can  hardly  be  suj^posed  to  admit  of  argument. 
To  suppose  a  person  an  "?teif'  and  yet  not  forgiven,  or 
forgiven  and  yet  not  an  heir,  involves  a  contradiction, 
if  not  in  words,  at  least  in  fact.  But  when  do  we  be- 
come heirs?  The  reply  is,  when  we  become  Abraham's 
children ;  not  according  to  the  flesh  certainly,  but  when 
we  are  constituted  such.  But  when  do  we  become 
Abraham's  children?  Certainly  when  we  become 
Christ's;  and  we  become  Christ's  when  in  him,  and  not 
before.  For,  says  the  apostle,  you  are  all  one  in 
Christ,  and,  if  Christ's,  (which  you  are  if  in  him,)  then 
are  you  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
promise. 

Kow,  what  persons  alone  are  in  Christ  ?  As  many,  is 
the  reply,  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  and  not  one 
more.  If,  now,  none  out  of  Christ  are  forgiven,  (and  let 
him  who  so  affirms  prove  it,)  and  if  all  in  him  are,  then 
the  very  act  of  entering  into  him  makes  the  difference 
between  the  forgiven  and  the  unforgiven  person.  If 
there  is  any  value  in  implication,  this  is  conclusive. 

Again,  out  of  Christ  alone  do  the  distinctions  exist 
between  Jew  and  Greek,  bond  and  free,  male  and  female. 
jSTow,  not  for  a  moment  can  it  be  doubted  that  the  in- 
stant in  which  these  distinctions  cease  to  exist  is  the 
instant  in  which  we  are  forgiven.  These  are  worldly 
distinctions,  and  cease  to  exist  only  when  we  cease  to 
be  of  the  world,  which  happens  the  instant  in  which  we 
are  forgiven.  ZSiOw,  that  the  instant  in  which  these  dis- 
tinctions cease  to  exist  is  tho  instant  in  which  we  nre 


REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


245 


baptized  into  Christ,  is  positively  certain.  Hence, 
hardly  less  certain  is  it  that  in  that  instant  we  are 
forgiven. 

But  doubtless  j\Ir.  Jeter  will  say,  are  we  not  all  the 
children  of  God  hj  faith  in  Christ  Jesus  ?  Certainly  we 
are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ ;  for  it  is 
by  faith  that  we  are  led  to  be  baptized  into  him  when 
alone  we  become  his ;  and  it  will  hardly  be  said  that  we 
become  the  children  of  God  before  we  become  Christ's. 

SECTION  IX. 

As  the  basis  of  our  ninth  and  last  argument  we  cite 
the  following  : — ^^And  he  said,  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  he 
saved?  And  they  said,  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house." 

This  passage  is  cited,  not  so  much  to  make  it  the  basis 
of  an  argument,  as  to  show  that  it  warrants  no  conclu- 
sion at  variance  with  the  conclusions  now  arrived  at 
from  the  preceding  arguments. 

The  question  then  to  be  considered  is.  Docs  the  pas- 
sage teach  that  salvation  depends  on  faith  alone  ?  Mr. 
Jeter  is  constrained  to  admit  that  it  does  not.  He  con- 
cedes that  it  implies  a  condition  which  it  does  not  name; 
but  on  what  ground  does  he  maintain,  that  it  implies  but 
one  ?  One,  certainly,  is  all  it  names ;  but  if  it  implies 
others,  why  not  ten  as  well  as  one  ?  To  assert  that  it 
implies  but  one  is  the  language  of  arbitrariness  and  not 
of  criticism.  Mr.  Jeter  concedes  that  it  implies  repent- 
ance ;  but  why  ?  If  on  the  ground  that  repentance  is 
taught  elsewhere,  so  is  baptism ;  but  if  on  the  ground 

21* 


246  REVIEW  OF  CAMrBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

that  faith  and  repentance  are  necessarily  united,  wo 
deny  the  position,  and  assert  that  they  are  necessarily 
not  united.  If  belief  cannot  exist  without  repentance, 
why  does  the  word  of  God  ever  enjoin  rej)entance  ?  In 
that  case  belief  alone  need  be  enjoined,  since,  if  a  man 
believe,  he  must  of  necessity  repent.  The  very  fact  that 
the  word  of  God  enjoins  belief  in  one  command,  repent- 
ance in  a  second,  and  baptism  in  a  third,  proves  that 
belief  and  repentance  are  as  distinct  as  belief  and  bap- 
tism. Poor,  indeed,  are  his  conceptions,  as  well  of  the 
workings  of  his  own  mind  as  of  the  teachings  of  Iloly 
Writ,  who  affirms  to  the  contrary.  The  truth  is,  that 
belief  not  only  precedes  repentance,  but  is  the  very 
ground  of  it.  From  repentance  we  may  certainly  infer 
belief,  but  from  belief  not  certainly  repentance. 

Mr.  Jeter's  position  that  belief  implies  repentance,  but 
not  baptism,  rests  on  no  foundation  worthy  of  the  name. 
It  is  an  insult  to  reason  no  less  than  to  revelation.  Had 
it  suited  his  purpose  to  exclude  repentance,  he  would 
have  done  so  with  as  little  compunction  as  he  excludes 
baptism. 

The  obvious  reason  why  the  apostle's  injunction  in- 
cluded only  belief  is,  that  the  jailer,  being  ignorant  of 
his  duty,  needed  to  be  taught  the  whole  of  it,  which,  in 
all  cases,  begins  with  belief  But,  being  properly 
taught  in  this  respect,  every  other  duty  would  be,  by 
a  person  in  his  state  of  mind,  promptly  complied  with 
as  soon  as  pointed  out.  "We  are  not,  however,  to  con- 
clude, because  baptism  was  not  commanded,  that  it  was 
therefore  not  necessary,  but  simply  that  it  was  not 
necessary  to  command  it;  or,  rather,  that  when  com- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


247 


manding  the  first  duty  it  was  not  necessary,  in  the 
same  sentence,  to  command  every  other.  ISTeither  are 
we  to  conclude,  because  the  design  of  baptism  is  not  in 
every  instance  stated,  that  it  is  not  therefore  necessary 
to  the  remission  of  sins.  The  Apostle  Peter,  in  Solo- 
mon's porch,  did  not  command  his  audience  to  believe j 
not  because  belief  is  not  necessary,  but  simply  because, 
under  the  circumstances,  it  was  not  necessary  to  com- 
mand it.  ^N'either  did  Paul,  when  enjoining  upon  the 
jailer  his  first  duty,  command  him  either  to  repent  or 
be  baptized  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins;  but  how 
illogical  to  infer  that  therefore  neither  is  necessary  to 
that  end ! 

Whatever  an  apostle,  in  any  case,  commanded  for  sal- 
vation or  remission,  became  by  that  very  fact  essential 
to  salvation  in  every  case;  and,  although  it  should 
never  have  been  mentioned  again  as  necessary,  its  value 
would  not  have  been  in  the  least  affected  by  that  cir- 
cumstance. One  command,  never  repeated  a  second 
time,  is  enough  to  establish  forever  a  duty,  and  a  single 
expression,  never  again  reiterated,  enough  to  define  and 
fix  its  value ;  but  a  thousand  omissions  to  mention  these 
subsequently  are  insufficient  to  affect  either.  The 
Apostle  Peter  commanded  an  audience  to  repent  and  be 
baptized  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sins,  which  alone,  to 
say  nothing  of  other  corroborative  passages,  forever 
fixed  the  value  of  both  repentance  and  baptism,  and, 
though  neither  had  ever  been  mentioned  again,  this 
would  still  be  their  value. 

But,  waiving  all  more  exact  inquiries,  upon  what 
broad  basis  can  we  place  the  salvation  of  the  jailer 


248 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


which,  as  a  precedent,  will  leave  no  douht  in  any 
mind  ?  The  facts  in  his  case  are  these : — he  heard  the 
Truth,  believed  it,  and  was  baptized  the  same  hour  of 
the  night.  The  law  in  his  case  was  this : — Tie  that  be- 
lieves and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved.  Upon  this  view  of 
the  case  not  a  doubt  can  possibly  arise.  TThy,  then, 
stop  short  of  absolute  certainty  where  the  interests  of 
eternity  are  at  stake  ? 

But  here  we  must  close  our  arguments  upon  the  con- 
nection between  baptism  and  the  remission  of  sins. 
And,  while  we  regret  that  our  limits  will  not  allow  us 
to  extend  them  further,  we  confess  we  are  not  sensi- 
ble, every  thing  considered,  that  such  extension  is  de- 
manded. Some  matters  which  have  been  omitted  alto- 
gether might,  joerhaps,  have  been  introduce-d  and  dwelt 
upon  with  profit ;  and  yet  even  these  might  have  added 
length  to  the  present  chapter  without  deepening  the 
conviction  it  is  intended  to  produce.  A  few  points 
touched  upon  might  have  been  treated,  and  with  ad- 
vantage, as  we  conceive,  with  greater  fullness  of  detail ; 
but  even  here  we  have  felt  that  something  of  import- 
ance might,  with  propriety,  be  sacrificed  to  brevity. 
Upon  the  whole,  the  subject  is  submitted  to  the  con- 
siderate judgment  of  the  reader,  in  the  firm  persuasion 
that  if  examined  in  the  light  of  the  preceding  passages 
and  arguments  based  thereon,  as  well  as  in  the  light  of 
his  own  calm  reason,  he  cannot  fail  to  arrive  at  the  con- 
clusion that  the  position  for  which  we  contend  enjoys 
the  clear  and  certain  sanction  of  Holy  Writ. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


249 


CHAPTER  Yin. 

OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  PRECEDING  DOCTRINE  OF  EEMTSSION 
CONSIDERED. 

SECTION  I. 

Objection  First.  "Baptism,  according  to  the  ^an- 
cient gospel/  is  not  the  fignre  or  formal  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  remission  of  sins,  but  the  indispensable, 
and,  it  would  seem,  the  only,  condition  of  obtaining  it. 

  Is  this  scheme  of  forgiveness  scriptural  ?  Is 

baptism,  like  repentance  and  faith,  an  indispensable  con- 
dition of  the  remission  of  si)isP  Let  the  reader  notice, 
— first,  that  this  scheme  of  remission  flatly  contradicts 
plain  and  numerous  Scripture  testimonies.  These  testi- 
monies, or  specimens  of  them,  I  have  already  adduced. 
Xow,  it  is  a  sound  and  admitted  principle  of  Biblical  in- 
terpretation, that  the  Scriptures  should  be  construed  in 
harmony  with  themselves.  The  obscure  must  be  eluci- 
dated by  the  clear,  and  the  figurative  by  the  literal.  It 
is  impossible  for  words  to  express  more  clearly,  point- 
edly, and  emphatically,  than  do  the  Scriptures,  that  God 
has  suspended  the  forgiveness  of  sins  on  the  exercise  of 
faith.  Take,  for  an  illustration,  the  words  of  Christ  to 
the  Jewish  Eabbi : — 'He  that  believeth  on  him  (the 
Son)  is  not  condemned,'  and  is,  consequently,  pardoned 
or  justified.  Xow,  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins — a 
phrase  susceptible  of  different  interpretations — must  be 


250 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


construed  in  harmony  with  tliis  unambiguous  language 
of  the  great  Teacher.  And  the  remark  is  true  of  all  the 
texts  under  consideration." 

In  this  extract,  which  contains  !Mr.  Jeter's  leading 
and  certainly  his  most  serious  objection,  occur  several 
things  which  we  think  it  best  to  single  out  and  notice 
separately. 

1.  '^Baptism  is  the  indispensable,  and,  it  would  seem, 
the  only,  condition  of  obtaining  remission." 

Candidly,  we  are  not  seldom  at  a  loss  to  know  how 
to  characterize  some  of  Mr.  Jeter's  assertions  without 
transcending  the  limits  which  courtesy  imposes.  To 
call  this  assertion  a  downright  falsehood  would  be  too 
harsh,  and  to  call  it  the  truth  would  be  a  falsehood. 
]S"ameless,  then,  we  let  it  stand.  Mr.  Campbell  main- 
tains (and  Mr.  Jeter  is  perfectly  acquainted  with  the 
fact)  that  there  are  three  conditions  on  which  remission 
of  sins  depends, — to  wit:  belief,  repentance,  and  bap- 
tism. Wherefore,  then,  the  preceding  false  and  slan- 
derous assertion  ? 

2.  ''Is  baptism,  like  repentance  and  faith,  an  indis- 
pensable condition  of  the  remission  of  sins?" 

In  what  cases  the  Savior  will  dispense  with  a  con- 
dition to  which  he  has  required  all  to  whom  the  gos- 
pel is  preached  to  submit,  is  a  question  the  decision 
of  which  we  are  not  bold  enough  to  undertake.  The 
Savior  himself  has  not  decided  it,  neither  have  the 
apostles.  We  should  tremble  to  enter  eternity  in  the 
gloom  of  their  silence. 

3.  "This  scheme  of  remission  flatly  contradicts  plain 
and  numerous  Scripture  testimonies." 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


251 


This  is  a  grave  charge,  and,  if  true,  certainly  the 
scheme'^  against  which"  it  is  urged  merits  universal 

condemnation.     Has  Mr.  Jeter  sustained  the  charge  ? 

"We  shall  now  examine  what  he  alleges  in  its  defence. 

1.  ^'It  is  impossible  for  words  to  express  more  clearly, 
pointedly,  and  emphatically,  than  do  the  Scriptures, 
that  God  has  suspended  the  forgiveness  of  sins  on  the 
exercise  of  faith.' ^ 

Substituting,  for  the  ridiculous  expression  the  exer- 
cise of  faith,''  simply  faith,  and  every  word  of  this  is 
granted.  But  it  is  certainly  possible  for  words  to  ex- 
press most  clearly  a  very  different  proposition, — one 
which  the  Scriptures  do  not  express,  and  which  is  the 
sole  ground  on  which  Mr.  Jeter's  objection  rests, — • 
namely,  that  God  has  suspended  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
on  faith  alone.  This  proposition  the  Scriptures  do 
not  express,  for  the  simple  reason  that  they  express 
nothing  which  is  false ;  and  this  is  the  only  proposition 
which  our    scheme"  of  remission  contradicts. 

2.  "The  phrase  ^baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins'  is 
susceptible  of  different  interpretations.'' 

If  the  phrase,  as  it  stands  in  Mr.  Jeter's  assertion, 
were  the  whole  of  the  phrase  in  the  word  of  God,  then, 
perhaps,  there  might  be  some  foundation  for  his  remark. 
But  such  is  not  the  case.  The  phrase  in  the  word  of 
God  is  not  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  but  repent- 
ance and  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins.  There  are 
no  two  interpretations  of  which  this  phrase  is  sus- 
ceptible. Whatever  repentance  is  for,  baptism  is  for; 
and  whatever  baptism  is  for,  repentance  is  for.  Conse- 
quently, since  repentance  is  for — that  is,  is  necessary  to — 


252 


REVIEW  OF  CAMI»BELLISM  EXAMINED. 


the  remission  of  sins,  remission  of  sins  is  what  baptism 
is  for,  or  the  thing  to  which  it  is  necessary.  AYhy,  now, 
we  ask,  unless  to  conceal  this,  was  Mr.  Jeter  guilty  of  the 
preceding  mutilation  of  a  portion  of  God's  holy  word  ? 
Alas  for  a  man  when  he  can  be  moved  to  render  such 
service  as  this  at  the  shrine  of  Orthodoxy,  for  no  higher 
end  than  merely  to  be  considered  a  votary  there ! 

3.  '^He  that  believeth  on  him  (the  Son)  is  not  con- 
demned, and  is,  consequently,  pardoned  or  justified." 

The  passage  from  which  this  conclusion  does  not  follow 
was  spoken  by  the  Savior  previously  to  his  prescribing 
the  grounds  on  which  justification,  during  his  reign,  is 
to  be  enjoyed,  and,  hence,  previously  to  baptism.  Con- 
sequently, to  infer  from  it  that  we  are  now  justified  by 
faith  alone  without  baptism  is  to  confound  times  which 
are  wholly  distinct,  and  to  render  null  an  existing  in- 
stitution by  a  passage  which  applied  before  it  had  an 
existence. 

But  in  all  such  passages  faith  is  to  be  viewed  not  so 
much  as  a  condition  of  remission  (though  it  certainly 
is  one)  as  the  great  princij)le  of  action  which  leads  to 
compliance  with  all  our  other  duties;  and,  where  it  is 
the  faith  of  a  sinner,  as  standing  for — ^because  it  leads  to 
compliance  with  them — the  other  conditions  of  re- 
mission, precisely  as  one  of  a  class  frequently  represents 
the  whole  class.  There  is  no  passage  in  the  word  of 
God  which  represents  faith  as  the  sole  condition  of 
remission  during  Christ's  reign,  and  hence  none  which 
our  "scheme"  of  remission  contradicts. 

4.  But,  says  Mr.  Jeter,  the  phrase,  baptism  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  must  be  construed  in  harmony  with 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


253 


the  unambiguous  language  of  the  great  Teacher, — He 
that  believeth  on  him  (the  Son)  is  not  condemned. 

Unquestionably  the  phrase  must  be  so  construed. 
How  now  shall  this  be  done?  The  language  of  the 
great  Teacher  does  not  say,  neither  does  it  imply,  that 
faith  is  the  sole  condition  of  remission;  while  the  Ian- 
guage  of  the  Apostle  Peter  does  say  that  repentance 
and  baptism  are  for  remission.  Hence,  since  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Apostle  expressly  includes  repentance  and 
baptism  as  for,  or  necessary  to,  remission,  and  since  the 
language  of  the  Savior  does  not  even  by  implication  ex- 
clude them,  as  not  necessary,  therefore,  since  not  thus 
excluded,  they  must  be  considered  as  intended  by  the 
Savior  to  be  understood  as  necessary.  Certainly,  what 
one  passage  does  not  exclude  as  not  necessary  to  remis- 
sion another  may  include  as  necessary  without  involving 
a  contradiction.  Thus,  therefore,  baptism  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins  can  be  made  to  harmonize  strictly  with 
the  language  of  the  great  Teacher. 

But  Mr.  Jeter  "maintains,  in  common  with  evangelical 
Christians  of  every  name,  that  the  sinner  passes  from  a 
state  of  condemnation  to  a  state  of  justification  at  the 
precise  moment  w^hen  he  truly  believes  in  Christ,  or, 
which  is  the  same  thing,  receives  him  as  a  Deliverer." 

At  the  precise  moment,  then,  when  a  person  believes, 
his  sins  are  remitted.  In  other  words,  faith  is  the  sole 
condition  of  remission,  all  others  being  excluded.  But 
faith  precedes  and  is  distinct  from  both  repentance  and 
baptism;  hence  they  are  both  excluded  as  conditions  of 
remission.  And  yet  the  Apostle  Peter  says  that  re- 
pentance and  baptism  are  for — i.e.  necessary  to — remis- 
22 


254 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMrNED. 


sion.  Here  now  is  an  irreconcilable  contradiction,  and 
that  too  between  3Ir.  Jeter's  own  scheme"  of  remis- 
sion and  the  word  of  God.  Will  he,  therefore,  relieve 
his  own  "scheme"  of  the  odium  of  contradiction  before 
he  again  attempts  to  charge  it  upon  the  '^scheme"  of 
]Mr.  Campbell  ? 

SECTION  II. 

Objection  Second.  "That  the  Scriptures  manifestly 
make  a  distinction  between  the  relation  which  faith 
and  that  which  baptism  bears  to  the  remission  of  sins, 
we  read  in  the  Scriptures;  and  many  such  passages  may 
be  found: — 'He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.'' 
'Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish.'  'If 
any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  let  him  be 
anathema  maranatha.'  'Now,  we  do  not  read,  nor  is  it 
intimated,  nor  is  any  thing  recorded  from  which  it  may 
be  fairly  inferred,  that  if  a  man  is  not  immersed  he  is 
condemned, — doomed  to  perish  and  to  be  anathematized 
at  the  coming  of  our  Lord.  But  if  Christ  has  made,  as 
Xr.  Campbell  contends,  repentance,  faith,  and  immersion 
equally  necessary  to  forgiveness,  how  can  it  be  accounted 
for  that  neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  ever  uttered  a 
malediction  against  the  unbaptized." 

1.  "The  Scriptures  manifestly  make  a  distinction 
between  the  relation  which  faith  and  that  which  bap- 
tism bears  to  the  remission  of  sins." 

They  manifestly  make  this  distinction, — that  faith  is 
the  first  and  baptism  the  last  of  the  three  conditions  on 
which  remission  depends;  but  they  do  not  make  this 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


255 


distinction, — that  faith  is  essential,  but  baptism  not,  to 
remission. 

2.  "Bat  if  Christ  has  made,  as  Campbell  con- 
tends, repentance,  faith,  and  immersion  equally  necessary 
to  forgiveness,  how  can  it  be  accounted  for  that  neither 
Christ  nor  his  apostles  ever  uttered  a  malediction 
against  the  unbaptized?'^ 

Mr.  Jeter's  question  amounts  to  this: — that  one  thing 
which  the  Bible  does  say  is  to  be  rejected  because  it 
does  not  say  another.  The  Bible  does  say  that  repent- 
ance and  baptism  are  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  it 
does  not  maledict  the  unbaptized:  what  then?  Shall 
we  reject  the  thing  which  it  does  say  because  it  does  not 
Bay  the  other?  How  foolish  some  men  can  make  them- 
selves appear !  But,  if  he  who  "  keeps  the  whole  law  and 
yet  offends  in  one  point  is  guilty  of  all,''  will  Mr.  Jeter 
inform  the  world  whether  the  word  of  God  must  anathe- 
matize the  unbaptized  before  his  negligence  can  be  con- 
sidered a  crime  for  which  he  may  be  condemned? 


SECTION  III. 

Objection  Third.  "There  are  consequences  involved 
in  the  theory  of  baptismal  remission  which  may  well 
make  us  hesitate  to  adopt  it.''  The  first  of  which,  in 
Mr.  Jeter's  own  language,  is  the  following: — "That  the 
salvation  of  men,  even  of  penitent  believers,  is  in  the 
hands  of  the  authorized  baptizers.  Popish  priests  have 
claimed  the  power  of  remitting  sins;  but  Protestants 
have  ever  considered  the  claim  an  arrogant  assumption. 
I  freely  concede  that  those  who  maintain  the  sentiment 


25G 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


wliicli  I  am  opposing  may  not  have  examined  its  bearing 
and  consequences.  I  speak  not  of  them,  but  of  their 
doctrine.  It  is,  however,  as  clear  as  that  two  and  two 
make  four,  that  the  remission  of  the  beUever's  sins, 
according  to  this  theory,  depends,  not  on  the  will  of 
God,  but  on  the  will  of  men.  He  cannot  baptize  him- 
self; and,  if  the  qualified  administrator  does  not  choose, 
under  no  matter  what  plea,  to  baptize  (or  regenerate) 
him,  he  must  either  be  pardoned  without  immersion,  be 
saved  without  pardon,  or  be  lost.  ^STo  sophistry  can 
evade  this  consequence.'' 

The  Apostle  Paul  propounds  the  following  questions : — 
^^How  shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not 
heard?  and  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher?" 
The  reply  to  which  is,  they  cannot  believe  in  him  of 
whom  they  have  not  heard,  neither  can  they  hear  with- 
out a  preacher.  And  yet  the  Savior  says,  "He  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 

'Now,  there  are  consequences  involved  in  this  theory 
of  salvation  which  may  well  make  us  hesitate  to  adopt 
it.  We  mention  the  following: — That  the  salvation  of 
men,  even  of  the  best-intentioned,  is  in  the  hands  of  the 
authorized  preachers.  Popish  priests  have  claimed  the 
power  of  remitting  sins;  but  Protestants  have  ever  con- 
sidered the  claim  an  arrogant  assumption.  We  freely 
concede  that  the  Savior  and  the  apostles  may  not  have 
examined  the  bearing  and  consequences  of  the  senti- 
ment they  have  published  to  the  world.  We  speak  not 
of  them,  but  of  their  doctrine.  It  is,  however,  as  clear 
as  that  two  and  two  make  four,  that  the  salvation  of 
the  sinner,  according  to  this  theory,  depends,  not  on 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


257 


the  will  of  God,  but  on  the  will  of  men.  He  cannot 
save  himself,  he  cannot  be  saved  without  belief,  and  he 
cannot  believe  w^ithout  a  preacher.  'Now,  if  the  qualified 
preacher  does  not  choose,  under  no  matter  what  plea, 
to  preach  to  him,  (save  him,)  he  must  either  be  saved 
without  belief,  believe  without  hearing,  or  be  lost.  No 
sophistry  can  evade  this  consequence. 

But  doubtless  Mr.  Jeter  will  say  the  cases  are  not 
parallel,  since,  when  the  Savior  says,  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned,  he  alludes  to  a  person  only  to 
wht9m  the  gospel  has  been  preached,  who  consequently 
has  it  in  his  power  to  believe  and  yet  will  not.  Exactly 
so:  and  so  we  say  that  baptism  is  obligatory  upon  those 
only  to  w^hora  the  gospel  is  preached  and  who  have  the 
power  to  obey  it.  Even  the  laws  of  God  bind  no  one, 
when  deprived  against  his  will  of  the  power  of  action; 
and,  to  whatever  extent  the  salvation  of  a  sinner  depends 
on  the  will  of  another,  to  that  extent  precisely,  if  the 
other  fails  to  act,  the  sinner  is  free. 


SECTION  IV 

Objection  Fourth.  ^'That  salvation  maybe  entirely 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  most  humble,  obedient,  and 
faithful  servants  of  Christ.  Let  me  suppose  a  case. 
Fidelis,  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  subject, 
became  a  convert  to  Christianity.  Deeply  conscious  of 
his  guilt  and  un worthiness,  he  cordially  embraced  Christ, 
as  his  prophet,  priest,  and  king,  consecrating  to  him, 
in  the  unfeigned  pm-pose  of  his  heart,  his  body,  soul, 
and  spirit    Enraptured  with  the  Savior's  charms,  he 

22*  ^  R 


258  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

rejoiced  in  his  word  and  worship  from  day  to  day.  Hav- 
ing settled  his  views  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  he  de- 
signed at  the  earliest  opportunity  to  take  on  him  the 
badge  of  discipleship  in  baptism.  But,  by  order  of 
Tyrannus,  an  inveterate  enemy  of  Christ,  he  was  ar- 
rested and  cast  into  prison  for  his  ardent  zeal  and  daunt- 
less testimony  in  the  Eedeemer's  cause.  To  him  bap- 
tism is  now  impossible.  And  poor  Fidelis  cannot  enjoy 
the  remission  of  his  sins." 

1.  "  That  salvation  may  be  entirely  beyond  the  reach 
of  the  most  humble,  obedient,  and  faithful  servants  of 
Christ." 

When  Mr.  Jeter  produces  a  most  obedient  and  faithful 
servant  of  Christ — a  convert  to  Christianity — who  has 
never  been  baptized,  then  his  petitio  principii  will  be 
entitled  to  notice;  but  until  then  it  is  passed  with  the 
contempt  which  it  merits. 

2.  But  what  of  the  case  of  ^^poor  Fidelis"?  First. 
The  case  is  purely  imaginary,  and  is  hence  no  ground 
of  argument  except  with  a  man  who  prefers  the  vagaries 
of  his  fancy  to  the  word  of  God. 

Second.  But  did  ^^poor  Fidelis"  enjoy,  while  evincing 
his  ardent  zeal"  and  bearing  his  '^dauntless  testimony" 
and  rejoicing  in  the  Savior's  worship)  "from  day  to  day," 
no  opportunity  to  be  baptized.  Eather  let  it  be  said  of 
him  that,  by  neglecting  his  duty  during  this  time,  he 
proved  himself  a  disobedient  wretch,  who,  if  cast  into 
prison,  deserved  to  suffer  the  whole  consequences  of  his 
folly.  Clearly,  he  was  not  taught  by  a  man  who  prac- 
tised after  the  apostle's  example,  else  the  same  hour  of 
the  niirht  in  which  he  heard  the  Truth  and  believed  ifc 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  259 


he  would  have  been  baptized :  what  then  would  have 
signified  his  imprisonment? 

Third.  Or  did  he  neglect  his  duty  because  taught,  as 
Mr.  Jeter  teaches,  that  baptism  is  not  essential  to  re- 
mission? If  so,  let  him  be  condemned  for  preferring 
the  counsels  of  wicked  men  to  the  counsels  of  God,  and 
hold  the  presumptuous  preacher  responsible  for  the  lie 
which  led  him  astray.  But,  if  he  had  not  the  oppor- 
tunity to  be  baptized,  then  it  was  not  his  duty.  It  is  no 
more  a  man's  duty  to  be  baptized,  where  baptism  is  im- 
possible, than  it  is  to  believe  where  belief  is  impossible. 
It  is  not  what  men  cannot  do,  but  what  they  can  do 
and  have  the  opportunity  of  doing,  that  God  requires 
at  their  hands.  Where  there  is  no  ability  there  is  no 
responsibility. 

SECTION  V. 

Objection  Fifth.  That  the  enlightened  and  tender 
conscience  can  never  be  fully  satisfied.  Questions  as  to 
the  validity  and  sin-cleansing  efficacy  of  baptism  must 
arise.  I  can  easily  know  when  I  have  passed  from  Vir- 
ginia into  Ohio,  because  they  are  separated  by  water. 
I  may  certainly  know  that  I  have  been  immersed ;  but 
whether  I  have  received  valid,  regenerating  baptism,  is 
another  matter.  Does  its  efficacy  depend  on  the  quali- 
fications of  the  administrator  ? — on  his  piety  ? — on  his 
baptism  ? — on  his  church  connection  ? — on  his  ordina- 
tion?—  on  his  intention?  Is  apostolical  succession, 
cither  in  the  line  of  baptism  or  of  ordination,  essential 
to  its  validity?  Is  its  sin-pardoning  virtue  connected 
with  the  views  entertained  of  it  by  the  subject? 


260  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

1.  ^^The  enlightened  and  tender  conscience  can  never 
be  fully  satisfied"  ? 

Certainly  not.  The  man  of  enlightened  and  tender 
conscience  should  seek  religion"  a  year  or  two,  groan  a 
few  weeks  over  the  ^'  mourners'  bench/'  see  a  few  sights, 
hear  a  few  sounds,  obtain  a  hope,  doubt  a  little,  be 
"catechized,'^  relate  a  "Christian  experience,"  and 
then,  "at  the  earliest  opportunity,"  "take  on  him  the 
badge  of  discipleship  in  bajDtism."  A  child  can  under- 
stand how  this  can  satisfy  the  enlightened  and  tender 
conscience. 

2.  "Questions  as  to  the  validity  and  sin-cleansing 
efficacy  of  baptism  must  arise," — to  wit:  "Does  its 
efficacy  depend  on  the  qualifications  of  the  adminis- 
trator?— on  his  piety? — on  his  baptism? — on  his  church 
connection?"  &c. 

To  an  upright  man,  who  has  been  made  acquainted 
with  what  the  Savior  and  the  apostles  teach  upon  the 
subject  of  baptism,  these  questions  never  occur.  These 
are  questions  of  a  corrupt  mind,  which,  having  exerted 
all  its  powers  to  distort  and  pervert  the  truth,  is  seek- 
ing by  dishonest  quibbles  to  justify  its  deeds  before  the 
world;  or  of  a  mind  bewildered  and  confused  by  the 
teachings  of  men  who  hide  the  truth  from  honest  hearts 
and  seek  to  supply  its  place  with  myths  and  dreams. 
1^0  honest  and  intelligent  man,  who  has  been  immersed 
in  the  fear  of  God  and  in  obedience  to  the  authority  of 
Christ,  ever  yet  doubted  either  jthe  validity  or  value  to 
him  of  his  baptism. 


EEVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


261 


SECTION  VI. 

Objection  Sixth.  "  That  repentance  the  most  sin- 
cere and  lasting,  faith  the  most  vigorous,  love  the 
most  self-sacrificing,  the  sanctifying  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ,  his  interces- 
sion before  the  throne,  and  the  abounding  grace  of  the 
Father,  are  all,  without  baptism,  unavailing  for  salva- 
tion. I  do  not  affirm  that  all  who  adopt  the  sentiment 
which  I  am  combating  push  it  to  this  extent,  but  I  fear- 
lessly aver  that  this  is  its  plain,  legitimate,  and  inevi- 
table consequence.  This  gives  to  baptism  an  unscrip- 
tural  prominence  in  the  Christian  system.  It  must 
tend,  as  the  kindred  dogma  of  transubstantiation  has 
tended  among  Papists,  to  engender  superstition.  At 
first  the  water  of  baptism  is  deemed  of  equal  moment 
in  the  scheme  of  salvation  with  the  cleansing  blood  of 
the  Eedeemer;  and  by  degrees  the  sign  will  come  to  be 
substituted  for  the  thing  signified, — the  ceremonial  to 
be  preferred  to  the  vital.  What  has  occurred  may  occur 
again.  Strange  as  it  may  appear,  the  error  which  I 
have  been  exposing  is  the  root  of  infant  baptism." 

Of  this  extract  the  first  part,  so  false  and  so  con- 
fused, merely  revives  the  old  ad  captandum  question, 
Can  a  man  be  saved  without  baptism  ?  We  shall,  how- 
ever, put  the  question  to  ^Ir.  Jeter  in  a  far  more  per- 
tinent form : — Are  sins  remitted  ivithout  one  of  the  condi- 
tions on  ivhich  remission  depends?  If  to  this  he  replies 
that  the  very  question  in  debate  is  whether  baptism  is 
one  of  these  conditions,  then  we  ask  why  he  did  not 


262  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

confine  himself  to  this  question,  which,  if  we  collect  his 
meaning,  he  has  not  done?  K  baptism  jointly  with 
faith  and  repentance  is  for  the  remission  of  sins,  as  we 
unwaveringly  believe  it  is,  then  we  still  steadily  affirm 
that  no  unbaptized  person  has  in  this  life  the  assurance 
that  his  sins  are  remitted.  And  if  our  heavenly  Father, 
notwithstanding  the  negligence  of  such  persons,  will 
still  condescend  to  save  the^n  ultimately,  we  liave  only 
to  say,  we  know  not  the  passage  in  the  Eible  which 
teaches  it. 

But  it  seems  that  our  view  of  the  design  of  baptism 
is  the  "root  of  infant  baptism."  Our  view  of  the  de- 
sign of  baptism  is  concisely  this : — that  baptism  when 
preceded  by  faith  and  repentance,  but  never  without 
them,  and  then  only  as  a  joint  condition  with  them,  is 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  How,  now,  can  this  view 
lead  to  the  baptism  of  infants,  who  can  neither  believe 
nor  repent,  and  who  have  no  sins  to  be  remitted? 
Did  ^Ir.  Jeter  not  know  the  assertion  to  be  false  when 
he  made  it  ?  Infant  baptism  had  its  origin  in  a  very 
different  cause.  It  originated  in  the  supposed  imputa- 
bility  of  Adam's  first  sin.  When  men  in  their  specula- 
tions had,  as  they  supposed,  discovered  that  Adam's 
first  sin  is  not  only  imputable,  but  actually  is  imputed, 
to  all  his  posterity,  they  at  once  started  the  inquiry. 
What  provision,  since  infants  are  sinners,  and  since 
none  can  be  saved  in  their  sins,  has  the  gospel  made  for 
their  salvation  ?  In  this  extremity,  fancying  that  baj)- 
tism  alone  is  for  the  remission  of  sins,  (which  is  utterly 
false,)  they  baptized  their  infants.  But  this,  beyond  all 
doubt,  was  a  perversion  of  the  ordinance.    Hence,  the 


REVIEW  OP  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  263 

practice  had  its  origin  in  a  misconception  of  the  nature 
of  sin,  and  consisted  then,  as  now,  in  an  abuse  of  bap- 
tism. This  is  the  true  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
practice. 

But,  even  allowing  it  to  be  true,  (which  is  not  the 
case,)  that  infant  baptism,  which  is  in  every  possible 
view  of  it  a  scandalous  abuse  of  the  ordinance,  sprang 
from  the  same  view  of  the  design  of  baptism  which 
we  entertain,  would  this  be  any  argument  against  that 
design  ?  Is  the  abuse  of  a  thing  in  the  midst  of  the 
nineteenth  century  deemed  a  good  argument  against 
it  ?  It  may  not  be  unworthy  of  Mr.  Jeter  to  think  so ; 
but  school-children  nowadays  know  better.  And  yet, 
if  there  is  any  point  in  what  he  says  on  the  origin  of 
infant  baptism,  this  is  the  amount  of  it. 


SECTION  VII. 

Objection  Seventh.  ^'What  will  be  the  condition 
of  a  believer  dying  without  baptism  ?  I  have  already 
shown  conclusively  that  the  believer  is  born  of  God, — 
that  he  possesses  everlasting  life, — and  that  he  is  a 
child  of  God;  and  yet,  agreeably  to  the  theory  under 
consideration,  he  is  unpardoned,  unjustified,  unsaved. 
In  this  condition  he  may,  unquestionably,  die.  What 
w^ould  become  of  him 

1.  If  Mr.  Jeter  has  proved  what  he  says  he  has 
proved,  of  course  the  man  will  be  saved.  But  this  he 
has  not  done.  That  he  is  vain  enough  to  believe  he  has 
done  it,  we  are  fully  prepared  to  admit.    But  with  us 


264 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


Lis  egotistic  assertions  have  long  since  assumed  a  value 
something  less  than  demonstrative. 

2.  But  why  is  the  man  supposed  to  be  unbaptized? 
His  being  so  must  result  either  from  uncriminal  igno- 
rance, or  from  some  restraint  which  renders  it  unavoid- 
able, or  it  is  wilful.  In  the  first  case,  his  baptism  is 
morally  impossible,  and  hence  not  a  duty ;  in  the  second, 
it  is  physically  impossible,  and  therefore  none;  and  in 
the  third  case,  it  is  wilful,  and  hence  a  sin.  A  simple- 
ton can  now  answer  Mr.  Jeter's  question. 

Last  of  all,  "'Mr.  Campbell  recoils  from  the  conse- 
quences of  his  own  doctrine.''  JMr.  Campbell's  doctrine 
is  precisely  that  of  the  Apostle  Peter;  but  from  no  con- 
sequence legitimately  deducible  from  it  has  he  ever  yet 
recoiled.  'Mr.  Jeter's  assertion  is  wholly  false.  That 
not  only  Mr.  Campbell,  but  all  common  sense  and  com- 
mon honesty,  might  recoil  from  many  consequences 
feigned  by  Mr.  Jeter  to  be  deducible  from  this  doctrine, 
full  well  we  can  believe.  A  man  who  can  tax  all  his 
powers  of  cunning,  who  blushes  at  no  trick,  is  ashamed 
of  no  quibble,  to  make  an  apostle  falsify  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit  which  moved  him  to  speak,  is  capable  of  deducing 
from  what  that  apostle  says  any  consequence,  no  matter 
how  monstrous,  if  it  should  chance  to  serve  a  turn. 
From  such  consequences  it  would  be  Mr.  Campbell's 
shame  not  to  shrink. 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


2G5 


CHAPTEE  IX. 

MB.  Jeter's  doctrine  op  remission  examined. 
SECTION  I. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  examine  M.v.  Jeter's  defence 
of  his  own  doctrine  of  remission  of  sins.  He  develops 
his  views  on  this  subject  in  some  ten  propositions, — four 
leading,  and  six  subordinate.  Several  of  these  may  be 
disposed  of  with  little  more  than  a  single  remark. 
Whether  he  was  ashamed  to  say  more  of  his  doctrine, 
or  whether  he  knew  it  to  be  inherently  so  weak  that  the 
less  is  said  of  it  the  better,  w^e  shall  not  say;  but  cer- 
tainly he  has  treated  it  with  a  brevity  not  a  little  signifi- 
cant. True,  there  is  not  one  of  these  propositions  which, 
if  we  understand  them,  is  not  in  itself  true;  and  yet,  in 
the  sense  in  which  it  was  intended  they  should  be  under- 
stood, there  is  not  one  truth  in  the  ten.  They  were  all 
constructed  with  a  view  to  deception.  Without  an  addi- 
tional qualification  not  one  of  them  has  the  least  ten- 
dency to  establish  the  doctrine  they  were  intended  to 
establish;  and  yet  with  that  qualification  any  one  of 
them  becomes  instantly  false.  We  expect  to  take  the 
ambiguity  out  of  these  propositions,  and  to  exhibit  in 
them  a  deformity  which  it  was  hoped  the  reader  would 
not  detect.    The  first  of  them  reads  thus : — 

Frop.  1.  "That  throughout  the  New  Testament  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  or  justification,  is  unequivocally  and  uncon- 

23 


266 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


ditionally  connected  icith  faith  or  with  exercises  which  imply 
its  existence." 

The  terms  ^-unequivocally'^  and  ^^unconditionally"  are 
inserted  in  this  proposition  for  no  purj)ose  but  to  confuse 
and  deceive.  As  the  proposition  is  now  worded  they 
add  nothing  to  it  either  of  force  or  meaning.  It  was 
hoped  the  reader  would  infer  from  them  what  they  have 
no  power  to  express.  Decej)tion  was  the  thing  intended 
when  they  were  inserted  and  the  only  effect  they  can 
have.  Omit  them  altogether  and  the  sense  of  the  propo- 
sition remains  the  same^  thus : — Throughout  the  'New 
Testament  the  remission  of  sins,  or  justification,  is  con- 
nected with  faith  or  with  exercises  which  imply  its 
existence.  This  is  exactly  what  the  proposition  asserts, 
and  all  it  asserts,  and  in  this  sense  it  is  true;  but  this 
is  not  what  ]\Ir.  Jeter  intended  the  reader  to  infer  from 
it.  We  shall  now  insert  the  word  alone  after  faith,  when 
the  proposition  will  convey  his  meaning  exactly;  or, 
if  it  does  not,  it  will  convey  the  only  meaning  which  in 
the  slightest  degree  differs  from  our  doctrine,  thus: — 
Throughout  the  Xew  Testament  the  remission  of  sins  is 
connected  with  faith  alone  or  with  exercises  which  imj)ly 
its  existence.  Xow  the  word  unconditionally"  may 
be  inserted  with  effect,  thus: — Throughout  the  New 
Testament  the  remission  of  sins  is  unconditionally  con- 
nected with  faith  alone  or  with  exercises  which  imply 
its  existence.  With  one  more  improvement  the  precise 
meaning  of  the  proposition  stands  revealed  and  false. 
The  word  connected"  should  give  place  to  the  word 
'^depends,"  thus: — Throughout  the  Xew  Testament  tho 
remission  of  sins  depends  unconditionally  on  faith  alone 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  267 

or  on  exercises  which  im^oly  its  existence.  But  this  is 
far  too  clear  for  ]\Ir.  Jeter,  s^o  deception  could  lurk  in 
it.  Its  falsity  becomes  apparent  at  sight.  In  this  form 
the  proposition  makes  remission  dej)end  On  faith  to  the 
exclusion  not  only  of  baptism  but  of  repentance  like- 
wise. But  this  proves  a  little  too  much  for  ]Mr.  Jeter. 
His  intention  was  to  construct  a  proposition  from  which 
his  readers  would  infer  that  remission  depends  on  faith 
to  the  exclusion  of  baptism  only;  but  this  he  could  not 
do  without  at  the  same  time  making  it  appear  that  re- 
mission depends  on  faith  to  the  exclusion  of  repentance 
likewise;  hence  the  intentional  ambiguity  of  his  propo- 
sition. 

Bat  we  are  not  yet  done  with  the  proposition.  Did 
Mr.  Jeter  not  perceive  that  the  supplemental  clause  ^^or 
exercises  which  imply  its  existence"  either  rendered  his 
proposition  false  or  virtually  asserted  the  truth  of  our 
doctrine?  For,  if  its  meaning  is  that  throughout  the 
New  Testament  the  remission  of  sins  depends  uncon- 
ditionally on  faith  alone,  then  clearly  it  cannot  depend 
on  "exercises''  of  faith,  since,  by  the  very  terms  of  the 
proposition,  exercises  are  excluded.  Or,  if  its  meaning 
is  that  remission  depends  unconditionally  either  on  faith 
but  not  on  faith  alone,  or  on  exercises"  which  imply  its 
existence,  then  it  may  depend  unconditionally  on  bap- 
tism, for  baptism  is  an  ^'exercise"  which  implies  faith. 

But,  the  truth  is,  ^^unconditionally"  does  not  convey 
Mr.  Jeter's  meaning  at  all.  It  qualifies  the  wrong  word 
altogether.  As  his  proposition  now  stands,  all  it  afiirms 
is,  that  remission  of  sins  is  unconditionally  connected, — 
i.e.  with  faith  or  with  exercises  which  imply  it.  And 


268  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

this  is  certainly  true.  Unconditionally  qualifies  connected. 
But  connected  is  not  the  word  which  ]\Ir.  Jeter  wishes 
to  qualify.  He  does  not  mean  to  qualify  the  connection 
between  faith  and  remission,  but  the  condition  on  which 
remission  depends.  He  does  not  mean  to  assert  that 
remission  is  unconditionally  connected  with  faith,  but 
that  faith  is  the  sole  condition  with  which  it  is  connected. 
Eut  the  instant  his  proj^osition  is  made  to  assert  this, 
the  supplemental  clause  falsifies  it. 

K  all  Mr.  Jeter  meant  is,  that  the  remission  of  sins  is 
certainly  or  unconditionally  connected  with  faith,  but 
not  with  faith  alone,  his  proposition  is  true;  but  if  this 
is  not  his  meaning,  his  projoosition  is  not  only  false,  but 
falsifies  itself    With  these  remarks  we  dismiss  it. 

"We  shall  not  stop  to  dwell  on  any  of  the  Scriptures 
adduced  by  Mr.  Jeter  in  support  of  his  proposition. 
Some  of  these  have  already  been  noticed,  and  others 
may  hereafter  be.  As  they  neither  assert  nor  neces- 
sarily imply — not  even  one  of  them — that  faith  is  the 
sole  condition  of  remission,  nor  any  thing  akin  to  it,  they 
may  with  propriety  be  passed  -with  this  brief  allusion 
to  them. 

SECTION  II. 

Prop.  2.  '^That  in  many  places  in  the  JVew  Testament 
spiritual  blessings,  which  imply  the  remission  of  sins,  are 
positively  promised  to  faith." 

Is  it  not  strange  that  any  man  should  entertain,  as 
Mr.  Jeter  does,  a  doctrine  which  he  clearly  fears  to  state 
in  a  simple  perspicuous  proposition  ?  He  parleys  around 
the  word  alone,  would  have  it  understood,  shrinks  from 


REVIEW  OF  CAMrBELLISM  EXAMINED.  2G9 

using  it,  and  yet  knows  that  no  other  terai  half  so  well 
and  briefly  conveys  his  meaning.  That  he  believes  with 
his  whole  heart  that  faith  is  the  sole  condition  of  remis- 
sion is  certain;  and  yet  he  fears  to  assert  it.  How  easy 
to  have  expressed  his  doctrine  thus: — the  remission  of 
sins  depends  on  faith  alone.  All  men  and  even  children 
could  have  understood  him  then.  But  his  cunning  taught 
him  that  no  such  proposition  as  this  could  hang  together 
an  instant  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Campbell.  Besides,  this 
would  have  been  too  clear  for  even  the  common  people. 
Even  they  could  have  pronounced  it  false.  Hence  some- 
thing far  more  involved  and  intricate  is  preferred ;  and 
yet,  by  this  very  mode  of  stating  his  doctrine,  Mr.  Jeter 
furnishes  no  mean  evidence  of  its  falsity. 

However,  we  shall  grant  his  proposition  to  be  true, 
with  the  single  qualification  that  in  the  'New  Testament 
there  is  not  even  one  blessing  promised  to  faith  alone. 
Faith  alone  is  never  in  the  New  Testament  treated  of  as 
the  condition  of  any  thing.  Wherever  spoken  of  by 
itself  it  is  always  to  be  conceived  either  as  a  principle 
of  action  leading  immediately  to  obedience  to  Christ,  or 
as  a  condition  jointly  with  other  conditions  of  whatever 
blessing  depends  on  it. 

But  in  confirmation  of  his  second,  as  a  leading  pro- 
position, Mr.  Jeter  subjoins  and  discusses  three  minor 
propositions,  of  which  it  is  proper  we  should  now  take 
notice, — the  first  of  which  is  thus  expressed: — 

1.  "  That  salvation  is  promised  to  faith."  True,  but 
not  to  faith  alone.  Salvation  is  promised  to  faith,  pre- 
cisely as  baptism  is  said  to  save  us, — i.e.  not  as  the  sole 

23* 


tlO  REYIETV  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

condition  of  salvation,  but  as  a  joint  condition  witn 
others,  the  others  being  understood. 

2.  ^'Adoption  into  the  family  of  God  is  the  privilege  of 
believers."  It  is  the  privilege  of  believers,  just  as  the  re- 
mission of  sins  is  the  privilege  of  a  penitent.  As  re- 
pentance is  not  the  sole  condition  of  remission,  so  neither 
is  faith  the  sole  condition  of  adoption.  Should  a  man 
believe  simply,  but  do  nothing  else,  he  would  never  be 
received  into  the  family  of  God.  l!^either  does  Mr.  Jeter 
believe  it,  though  he  intended  the  reader  to  infer  it  from 
his  proposition.  His  proposition  is  true  in  the  proj^er 
view  of  it,  but  he  wished  a  false  inference  to  be  drawn 
from  it. 

3.  "Eternal  life  is  distinctly  promised  to  faith."  Does 
Mr.  Jeter  mean  that  eternal  life  is  promised  to  faith  as 
the  sole  condition  on  which  it  is  bestowed?  If  so,  we  shall 
not  attempt  to  discuss  with  him  a  proposition  which  he 
knew  to  be  false  when  he  penned  it.  But  in  what  lies 
his  argument?  Certainly  in  this,  if  in  any  thing : — that 
eternal  life  is  distinctly  promised  to  faith  alone,  and, 
since  eternal  life  includes  the  remission  of  sins,  there- 
fore the  remission  of  sins  depends  on  faith  alone.  But 
we  deny,  first,  that  eternal  life  is  promised  to  faith 
alone;  and,  second,  that  eternal  life  and  the  remission 
of  sins  depend  on  the  same  conditions,  except  in  part  or 
accidentally.  TThen  Mr.  Jeter  makes  good  these  positions 
he  carries  his  point,  but  not  before. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Mr.  Jeter  seems  to  be  dis- 
cussing all  the  time  a  proposition  which  is  not  in  dis- 
pute. He  seems  to  be  discussing  the  proposition  that 
the  sinner  is  saved  by  faith.    But  this  we  have  neyev 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  271 

denied.  AYhat  we  deny  is  that  the  sinner  is  saved  by 
faith  alone, — a  very  different  proposition.  Hence,  all 
the  Scriptures  cited  by  him  are  irrelevant,  since  they 
establish  only  the  former  proposition,  but  have  no 
tendency  to  establish  the  latter. 

SECTION  III. 

Prop.  3.  ''Tliat  privileges  which  are  inseparable  from  the 
remission  of  sins  are  frequently  promised,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, to  exercises  or  graces  that  imply  the  existence  of 
faith." 

This  is  a  mere  rej)etition  of  the  second  proposition 
with  a  slight  change  of  verbiage.  That  relates  to  bless- 
ings, this  to  privileges;  and  yet,  under  that,  Mr.  Jeter 
says,  adoption  into  the  family  of  God  is  the  privilege  of 
believers,  and  under  this,  the  first  passage  he  quotes  re- 
lates to  blessings!  But  this,  like  that,  rests  on  three 
minor  propositions,  namely : — 

1.  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  promised  to  humility." 
The  line  of  argument  which  this  and  the  leading  pro- 
position together  indicate  is  this: — the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  a  privilege;  this  privilege  implies  the  remission 
of  sins.  Humility  is  an  exercise  or  a  grace;  this  exercise 
or  grace  implies  faith.  Now,  that  privilege  is  promised 
to  this  exercise  or  grace;  therefore  the  remission  of  sins 
depends  on  faith  alone,  without  or  to  the  exclusion  of 
baptism. — q.e.d. 

To  enjoy  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  certainly  a  privi- 
lege, but  a  privilege  enjoyed  by  those  alone  who  are  in 
it.    'Now,  however  commendable  and  necessary  a  thing 


272 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


humility  may  be,  (and  we  are  far  from  wishing  to 
underrate  it)  men  do  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  by  it.  They  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
hy  being  horn  of  water  and  of  ttte  Spirit:  at  least,  so  taught 
the  Savior;  but,  when  in  the  kingdom,  without  humility 
they  will  not  be  allowed  to  enjoy  it.  This  presents  us 
with  the  correct  view. 

2.  '^Salvation  is  promised  to  prayer."  Salvation,  in  the 
case  of  a  Christian,  certainly  depends  on  prayer,  but  not 
on  prayer  alone.  It  depends  on  prayer  jointly  with  the 
discharge  of  other  duties.  But  nowhere  does  the  Xew 
Testament  teach  that  during  the  reign  of  Christ  the  re- 
mission of  the  sinner's  sins — that  is,  a  person  who  has 
never  been  a  Christian — depends  on  prayer.  If,  there- 
fore, Mr.  Jeter's  proposition  includes  Christians  only,  it 
is  true;  but,  if  it  includes  aliens  with  Christians,  it  is 
false. 

3.  Adoption  is  declared  to  he  tJie  privilege  of  such  persons 
follow  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit."    This  proposition 

presents  us  with  no  new  matter.  Indeed,  it  is  the  mere 
repetition  for  the  sixth  time  of  the  sole  argument  with 
which,  so  far,  Mr.  Jeter  has  attempted  to  sustain  his 
cause.  But  his  proof  of  the  proposition  should  be  re- 
peated,— namely,  For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit 
of  God  (and  if  those  who  repent  and  believe  the  gospel 
are  not  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  by  what  Spirit  are 
they  led?)  they  are  the  sons  of  God."  This  is  too  bad. 
Such  pueriHty  we  cannot  stoop  to  notice.  But,  as  an 
offset  to  the  nonsense,  we  subjoin  the  following: — ^^For 
as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  (and,  if  those 
who  believe,  repent,  and  are  baptized  are  not  led  by  the 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  273 

Spiiit  of  God,  by  what  Spirit  are  they  led  ?)  they  are  the 
sons  of  God." 

SECTION  IV. 

Prop,  4.  ^^That  the  remission  of  sins  was,  in  various 
cases,  possessed  and  enjoyed  by  faith  without  or  before 
baptism." 

Whether  this  proposition  is  to  be  considered  true  or 
false  depends  altogether  on  the  period  of  time  to  which 
it  is  applied  and  the  qualifications  with  which  it  is  at- 
tended. It  is  certainly  true  that,  at  a  period  of  time 
when  no  such  thing  as  baptism  existed,  remission  of  sins 
was  enjoyed  in  innumerable  instances  without  baptism ; 
but  even  then  it  is  not  so  certain  that  remission  de- 
pended on  faith  alone,  unless  as  an  exception  to  the 
rule.  For  four  thousand  years  of  the  world's  history — 
namely,  from  the  creation  of  man  to  the  commencement 
of  John's  ministry — remission  of  sins  was  enjoyed  with- 
out baptism,  for  the  simple  reason  that  there  was  no 
such  thing  as  baptism;  but  it  is  far  from  being  certain 
that  even  during  that  time  remission  was  enjoyed  by 
faith  alone.  Indeed,  it  is  very  certain  that  in  most 
cases  it  was  not.  But  ^Ir.  Jeter  attempts  to  sustain  his 
proposition  by  three  actual  instances  of  its  truth,  two 
of  which  we  shall  now  examine. 

The  first  of  these  instances  is  that  of  the  thief  on  the 

cross.    The  argument  based  on  this  case  against  us  (an 

argument  which  has  been  refated  a  thousand  times)  is 

briefly  this: — The  thief  on  the  cross  was  saved,  and 

saved  without  baptism ;  therefore  baptism  is  not  neces- 

s 


274  REYJEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

sary  to  salvation.  We  admit  the  premises,  but  deny  the 
conclusion. 

During  the  continuance  of  John's  ministry  no  Jew 
could  be  saved  without  baptism;  for  those  who  rejected 
it  rejected  the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves,  and 
hence  could  not  be  saved.  Moreover,  his  baptism  was, 
for  the  time-being, /or,  that  is,  the  means  of  obtaining,  tho 
remission  of  sins,  but,  even  then,  in  the  case  of  a  Jew 
only,  and  not  in  that  of  a  Gentile.  But,  when  John  died, 
baptism  again  ceased  to  be  necessary  to  salvation  even 
in  the  case  of  a  Jew.  John  had  no  successor  in  office, — 
left  no  one  to  continue  his  ministry.  His  baptism  ceased 
with  his  life.  Hence,  from  the  day  of  his  death  until 
the  day  of  Pentecost  there  was  not  a  man  on  earth 
authorized  to  administer  baptism.  Indeed,  during  this 
period  there  existed  by  authority  no  baptism.  Hence, 
the  Savior  neither  authorized  the  seventy  nor  the  twelve 
whom  he  sent  out  during  this  time,  to  baptize.  And, 
although  it  is  pretty  certain  that  after  John's  death 
some  of  his  discij)les  continued  to  practise  his  baptism, 
still,  they  did  it  without  authority.  Kow,  it  was  during 
this  time  that  the  salvation  of  the  thief  occurred.  It 
occurred  at  a  time  when  baptism  had  by  authority  posi- 
tively no  existence  whatever.  Hence  it  was  obligatory 
on  no  one. 

AYe  are  now  prej)ared  to  correct  the  argument  based 
on  the  case  of  the  thief,  thus : — The  thief  on  the  cross 
was  saved, — saved  without  baptism ;  therefore  baptism 
was  not  necessary  to  salvation.  This  argument  is  cor- 
rect. But  how  illogical  to  infer  that,  because  baptism 
was  not  necessary  to  salvation  at  a  time  when  it  had  no 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  275 

authorized  existence,  it  is  not  now  necessary !  And  yet 
this  is  exactly  what  !Mr.  Jeter  does. 

But,  in  speaking  of  this  and  a  like  case,  he  says, 
Possibly  it  may  be  objected  (though  the  objection  is, 
in  my  view,  of  no  validity)  that  these  cases  occurred  be- 
fore the  giving  of  the  apostolic  commission.'^  AYhat  the 
objection  may  be  in  the  view  of  Mr.  Jeter  we  cannot  say, 
but  we  venture  to  assert  that,  in  the  view  of  all  candid 
men  who  can  understand  the  nature  of  the  connection 
between  a  premise  and  its  conclusion,  the  objection  is 
perfectly  overwhelming.  To  argue  that  baptism  is  not 
now  necessary  to  salvation,  because  the  thief  was  saved 
without  it  at  a  time  when  it  was  no  man's  duty  to  be 
baptized,  is  knowingly  to  argue  falsely.  It  is  as  gross 
an  outrage  of  reason  and  truth  as  to  argue  that  faith  in 
Christ  is  not  now  necessary  to  salvation,  because  the 
time  was,  before  Christ  came,  when  it  was  not  neces- 
sary. It  is  a  poor  reply  to  the  objection  in  question 
to  say  it  is  "of  no  validity."  But,  wanting  as  it  is  in 
validity,  Mr.  Jeter  would  part  from  the  nails  on  his 
fingers,  could  he  successfully  repel  it ;  and  well  might 
he  do  so,  for  to  repel  it  would  be  the  triumph  of  his 
cause. 

But  he  cites  also  the  case  of  Cornelius,  and  thinks  it  a 
^^fair  inference"  that  his  sins  were  remitted  before  bap- 
tism. This  inference  appears  to  rest  on  the  supposition 
that  the  miraculous  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  in  the  case 
necessarily  implied  the  remission  of  his  sins.  But  this, 
in  the  absence  of  all  evidence,  we  cannot  admit,  and, 
hence,  think  the  inference  any  thing  else  than  fair. 
When  once  the  design  of  an  ordinance  has  been  esta- 


276         REVIEW  or  campbellism  examined. 

blished  by  divine  authority,  of  wKat  avail  is  human 
inference  against  it  ?  Whatever  baptism  was  for  to  the 
three  thousand  at  Pentecost,  it  was  for  in  the  case  of 
Cornelius.  To  him  it  had  all  the  meaning  it  has  to  any 
one  else,  and  no  more.  The  ordinance  has  not  two 
designs,  but  one.  We  hence  conclude  that,  when  Peter 
commanded  Cornelius  to  be  baptized,  it  was  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins. 

True,  the  Spirit  was  poured  out  on  him  before  his 
baptism,  but  why  ?  'Not  as  an  evidence  that  his  sins 
were  remitted,  but  as  an  evidence  that  the  Gentiles  as  well 
as  the  Jews  were  to  be  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  the  gospel. 
This  much  we  can  affirm  in  the  light  of  revelation,  but 
beyond  this  all  is  myth.  To  infer  that  Cornelius  was 
pardoned  before  his  baptism  on  no  other  ground  than 
that  of  the  extraordinary  outpouring  of  the  Spirit — un- 
less we  knew  that  such  outpouring  necessarily  implied 
the  remission  of  his  sins,  (a  thing  which  we  can  never 
know,) — is  not  to  reason,  but  to  speculate.  It  is  here 
that  Mr.  Jeter's  argument  reveals  its  weakness.  He 
assumes  that  an  extraordinary  fact  sustaining  to  remis- 
sion— he  can  never  say  what  relation — is  to  be  taken 
as  evidence  thereof,  and  then  on  this  fact  bases  his  in- 
ference as  to  when  Cornelius  was  pardoned.  But  his 
argument  is  clearly  defective.  When  it  is  once  esta- 
blished that  baptism  is,  even  in  one  case,  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  the  presumption  is  that  this  is  what  it  is 
for  in  every  case;  and  so  strong  is  this  presumption, 
that  nothing  save  an  actual  assertion  of  the  Bible  to  the 
contrary,  or  some  fact  wholly  irreconcilable  therewith, 
can  set  it  aside.    For  this  reason,  we  must  still  insist 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  277 

that  baptism  even  in  the  case  of  Cornelius  was  for  the 
remission  of  sins. 

SECTION  V. 

Having  now  examined  such  arguments  as  ^Ir.  Jeter 
has  to  offer  in  defence  of  his  view  of  remission,  we  shall 
next  present,  in  his  own  language,  his  strange  theory 
of  baptism. 

"If,"  he  remarks,  (p.  258,)  baptism,  as  I  have  en- 
deavored to  show,  is  not  a  condition  or  means  of  obtain- 
ing the  remission  of  sin,  then  it  follows  that  it  is  a 
symbolic  declaration  of  the  remission  of  sins  already  ob- 
tained through  faith  in  Christ.  In  support  of  this  con- 
clusion, I  remark, — 

First.  That  it  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Scriptures.  This  point  has  been  sufficiently 
elucidated,  and  the  reader  must  judge  of  it  for  himself 

"  Secondly.  That  it  is  according  to  analogy.*  There 
are  two  Xew  Testament  institutions, — baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.  The  latter  is  unquestionably  a  symbolic 
ordinance.  Bread  and  wine  are  used  to  symbolize  the 
broken  body  and  sin-atoning  blood  of  Jesus.  May  we 
not  reasonably  infer  that  both  ordinances  are  of  the 
same  general  nature, — that  as  one  is  symbolic  so  is  the 
other?  If  we  do  not  literally,  but  only  in  a  figure, 
eat  the  Lord's  body  and  drink  his  blood  in  the  supper, 
does  it  not  seem  probable  that  our  sins  are  not  literally, 
but  only  in  a  figure,  washed  away  in  baptism  ?" 

Such  is  Mr.  Jeter's  theory  of  baptism;  and  greater 


*  ''Analogies  prore  nothing." — J.  B.  Jeter. 

24 


278  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

confusion  of  thought  than  it  indicates,  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  imagine.  Xo  one  not  as  blind  as  its  author  can 
be  mistaken  as  to  the  motive  which  produced  it.  It  is 
a  monstrous  effort  to  evade  the  plainest  teachings  of 
Holy  "Writ.  Pliant,  truly,  and  morbid  must  be  that 
credulity  which  staggers  not  at  this  and  yet  rejects 
baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins.  But  we  must  par- 
ticularize. 

1.  ^^May  we  not  reasonably  infer  that  both  ordi- 
nances [baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper]  are  of  the 
same  general  nature, — that  as  one  is  symbolic  so  is 
the  other?" 

Is  this  humble  petition  all  the  evidence  Mr.  Jeter  has 
to  present  that  the  two  institutions  are  of  the  same 
symbolic  nature  ?  Alas  for  a  cause  when  it  has  to  beg 
its  way  to  the  confidence  of  mankind  !  But  let  us,  in 
reply  to  the  feeble  prayer,  grant,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  both  institutions  are  of  the  same  general 
nature :  what  then  ?  What  has  this  to  do  with  the 
design  of  either?  Literally  nothing.  But  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  symbolic  :  granted;  and  baptism  is  symbolic  : 
granted.  In  the  Lord's  Supper  we  literally  eat  the 
loaf  and  drink  the  wine,  and  these  respectively  represent 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  And  in  baptism  we  are 
literally  immersed;  hut  what  does  this  represent f  Ee- 
mission  of  sins,  says  Mr.  Jeter.  But  where  is  the  proof? 
We  know  that  the  loaf  represents  the  Savior's  body, 
and  the  wine  his  blood,  for  he  has  told  us  so.  But 
where  has  he  told  us  that  baptism  represents  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  ?  AYe  repeat,  where  ? 

2.  ^'If  we  do  not  literally,  but  only  in  a  figure,  eat  the 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  279 

Lord's  body  and  drink  his  blood  in  the  supper,  does  it 
not  seem  probable  that  our  sins  are  not  literally,  but 
only  in  a  figure,  washed  away  in  baptism  V 

To  talk  of  eating  the  Lord's  body  and  drinking  his 
blood  in  a  figure,  of  washing  away  sins  in  a  figure,  is 
supremely  ridiculous.  The  truth  is,  we  neither  eat  the 
Lord's  body  nor  drink  his  blood  in  any  sense.  We  lite- 
rally eat  the  loaf  and  drink  the  wine,  and  these  represent, 
or  stand  for,  his  body  and  blood.  In  like  manner,  in  bap- 
tism we  are  literally  immersed,  but  there  is  nothing  for 
which  our  immersion  stands,  as  the  loaf  stands  for  the 
body  of  Christ.  It  is  just  here  that  Mr.  Jeter's  far- 
fetched theory  betrays  its  truthlessness.  Indeed,  the 
whole  thing  is  a  mere  figment,  unnaturally  forced  out 
of  his  brain  to  avoid  admitting  what  is  as  clearly  taught 
in  the  word  of  God  as  the  divinity  of  the  Savior: — that 
baptism,  jointly  with  belief  and  repentance,  is  for  the 
remissi^  q  of  sins. 


280 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THREE  MISCELLANEOUS  ITEMS. 

SECTION  I. 
Our  Arianism. 
Upon  this  subject  of  course  Mr.  Jeter  is  all  himself, 
and  so  extremely  orthodox  that  he  is  wellnigh  a  heretic. 
That  some  traits  of  his  character  singularly  fit  him  for 
writing  on  it,  we  at  least  shall  not  deny.  It  is  peculiar 
to  small  minds  that  they  would  always  appear  to  be 
great  by  seeming  perfectly  to  comprehend  those  sub- 
jects which  even  the  greatest  minds  are  unable  to  grasp. 
"Nor  is  it  a  less  frequent  case  that  those  whose  sound- 
ness in  the  faith  there  is  the  best  reason  to  suspect  are 
most  clamorous  about  the  heresies  of  others.  But  the 
following  is  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Jeter  discourses 
of  our  heresy  on  this  subject : — 

Unitarianism,  in  all  its  phases,  from  high  Arianism 
to  low  Socinianism,  is,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Christian 
world,  a  far  more  serious  error  than  Universalism.  It 
divests  the  gospel  of  its  distinctive  glory,  and  converts 
it  into  a  lifeless,  cold,  and  inefficient  code  of  ethics.  The 
atonement  of  Christ,  deriving  its  efficacy  from  the  essen- 
tial and  infinite  dignity  of  his  person,  is  the  only  founda- 
tion of  a  sinner's  hope  and  consolation.  The  reformers 
received  Unitarians  into  their  fellowship,  and  sanctioned 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  281 

their  ministrations  with  a  full  knowledge  of  their  errors. 
In  the  early  part  of  the  present  century,  a  party  of  Kew 
Lights,  headed  by  the  Eev.  Barton  W.  Stone,  in  the  State 
of  Kentucky,  became  Arians.  In  a  letter  to  the  Chris- 
tian Baptist,  published  in  the  year  1827,  he  used  this 
language: — 'If  these  observations  be  true,  will  it  not 
follow,  undeniably,  that  the  word  {di^  hoii)  by  whom  all 
things  were  made,  was  not  the  only  true  God,  but  a 
person  that  existed  with  the  only  true  God  before  crea- 
tion began, — not  from  eternity,  (else  he  must  be  the 
only  true  God,)  but  long  before  the  reign  of  Augustus 
Caesar?' 

^'Of  the  extent  to  which  the  Arian  notions  of  3Ir. 
Stone  did  formerly,  or  do  now,  prevail  among  the  re- 
formers, I  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  In  the  year 
1844,  I  made  a  tour  in  the  West,  of  which  notes  were 
published,  on  my  return,  in  the  Eeligious  Herald.  From 
the  notes  I  extract  substantially  the  following  para- 
graph, the  statements  in  which,  so  far  as  I  have  seen, 
have  never  been  called  in  question,  and  which,  I  pre- 
sume, cannot  be  successfully  contradicted. 

''In  the  town  of  Columbia,  Missouri,  and  its  vicinity, 
the  Disciples,  better  known  as  Campbellites,  are  some- 
what numerous.  They  were  formerly  professedly  Arians, 
but  some  years  since  they  united  with  the  followers  of 
Mr.  Alexander  Campbell.  I  took  much  pains  to  learn 
whether  their  views  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  had  under- 
gone a  satisfactory  change.  All  with  whom  I  conversed 
on  the  subject  concurred  in  testifying  that  they  reject 
the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity,  and  of  his  substitu- 
tional and  piacular  sufferings.    One  of  the  pr<^>fessorp  of 

24* 


282 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


the  University  of  Missouri  (situated  at  this  place)  in- 
formed me  that  in  a  conversation  which  he  held  with 
Mr.  A.,  a  distinguished  preacher  of  the  denomination  in 
this  State,  he  most  distinctly  repudiated  these  vital 
principles  of  the  evangelic  system.  One  thing  is  cer- 
tain: — the  Disciples  are  not  ignorant  of  the  fact  that 
they  are  generally  believed  to  be  Arians;  and  under 
this  imputation  they  patiently  lie.  Unless  there  is  a 
strange  and  prevalent  misconception  in  the  community, 
these  Disciples  stand  in  most  urgent  need  of  a  thorough 
doctrinal  reformation.'^ 

Several  things  in  these  extracts  we  believe  it  neces- 
sary to  notice. 

I.  "  The  reformers  received  Unitarians  into  their  fel- 
lowship, and  F auctioned  their  ministrations  with  a  full 
knowledge  of  their  errors.'' 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Stone  and  his  brethren  did,  in  the 
State  of  Kentucky,  in  the  early  part  of  the  present  effort 
at  reformation,  unite  with  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  breth- 
ren, neither  party  claiming  superiority  over  the  other  in 
union :  but  it  is  not  true  that  Mr.  Stone  and  his  brethren 
were  united  with  as  Arians ;  nor  is  it  true  that  we,  as  a 
people,  have  ever  sanctioned  the  ministrations  of  any  man 
or  set  of  men  as  Arians,  or  the  preaching  of  Arian  senti- 
ments. The  charge  is  an  arrant  slander.  In  the  union 
between  Mr.  Stone  and  Mr.  Campbell,  the  Bible,  the  whole 
Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible,  in  the  full  and  proper  sense 
of  its  terms,  upon  all  7natters  both  of  faith  and  practice,  was 
the  sole  basis  of  the  union.  Upon  no  other  basis,  nor  in 
any  other  sense,  did  Mr.  Campbell  ever  consent  to  the 
union ;  and  it  is  due  the  memory  of  Mr.  Stone  to  say, 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  288 

that  on  no  other  basis  nor  in  any  other  sense  did  he 
ever  demand  the  union. 

But  we  owe  it  to  ourselves  as  a  people  to  say,  that,  on 
more  subsequent  occasions  than  one,  'Mr.  Stone  did  hold 
language  which  we  do  not  indorse,  and  gave  utterance 
to  sentiments  (as,  for  example,  that  in  the  extract  cited 
by  3Ir.  Jeter)  which  we  distinctly  disavow  and  repudi- 
ate. But  in  saying  this  we  are  merely  to  be  understood 
as  giving  utterance  to  our  own  real  convictions  in  the 
case,  and  not  as  intending  a  compliment  to  the  cap- 
tious spirit  of  sectarianism,  nor  yet  an  unkind  reflection 
on  the  memory  of  Mr.  Stone.  We  have  long  since,  we 
trust,  learned  to  distinguish  between  the  error,  though 
even  a  grave  one,  of  a  good  man's  head  when  specu- 
lating, and  those  traits  of  his  heart  which  mark  him  as 
a  man  of  lofty  faith  and  genuine  piety.  While  trying  to 
comprehend  those  incomprehensible  and  mysterious  re- 
lations which  subsist  between  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
to  which  his  finite  powers  did  not  fit  him,  (and  of  whom 
can  less  be  said?)  ]\Ir.  Stone  did  at  times,  as  we  conceive, 
fall  below  the  merits  of  the  subject;  but  he  never  forgot 
to  honor  that  Son  with  a  veneration  and  service  which 
should  put  to  the  blush  the  thousand  bigots  who  are 
still  willing  to  cavil  at  his  error.  He  never  breathed  a 
prayer  to  the  Father  of  mercies  nor  uttered  the  name 
of  the  Savior  that  he  poured  not  forth  a  depth  and 
warmth  of  devotion  w^iich  finds  no  place  in  the  lip- 
service  of  those  who  can  still  enact  their  revels  over  his 
grave,  and  who,  while  they  affect  to  honor  the  Savior 
by  words  and  names,  are  yet  far  from  him  in  their 
hearts  and  in  their  practice. 


284 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


It  is  further  due  the  memory  of  ]\Ir.  Stone  to  say,  that 
he  did  not  himself  consider  his  views  to  be  Arian;  that 
he  held  the  Son  to  he  divine  as  the  Father,  but  not,  like 
the  Father,  eternal;  and  that  only  in  his  polemic  dis- 
cussions, or  in  an  occasional  fugitive  piece,  did  he  ever 
trouble  the  public  with  his  sentiments  on  the  subject. 
In  all  his  other  public  and  private  teachings  he  preached 
Christ  Jesus  and  him  crucified  as  an  all-sufiicient  Savior 
of  sinners,  free  from  all  objectionable  peculiarities. 

Xor  is  it  less  due  to  Mr.  Campbell  to  state,  that  no 
sooner  had  Mr.  Stone  published  his  first  illicit  line  or 
given  utterance  to  his  first  vagrant  thought  on  this  sub- 
ject, than  he  promptly  opposed  him;  and  that  he  con- 
tinued to  do  so  with  a  voice  kind,  but  decided  and  ever 
dissentient,  until  the  latter  was  summoned  to  that  bai 
where  all  human  disputes  must  receive  their  ultimate 
adjustment.  While  Mr.  Campbell  is  not  ashamed  to 
avow  his  respect  for  the  memory  of  Mr.  Stone,  nor  his 
affection  for  him  as  a  man  while  living,  he  is  not  now 
willing  to  be  thought  the  apologist  for  his  error,  nor 
yet  to  be  held  responsible  for  it.  He  profoundly  disap- 
proves the  Arian  doctrine  on  the  present  subject,  no 
matter  in  whom  found. 

11.  ^^One  thing  is  certain : — the  disciples  are  not  igno- 
rant of  the  fact  that  they  are  generally  believed  to  be 
Arians;  and  under  this  imputation  they  patiently  lie.'' 

"We  can  inform  Mr.  Jeter  that  there  is  more  than  one 
thing  certain  in  the  premises.  It  is  certain  that  we  are 
not  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  we  are  charged  with  being 
Arian s,  certain  that  the  truth  was  never  uttered  when 
the  charge  was  made,  and  certain  that  it  is  wholly 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


285 


false  that  we  have  lain  patiently  under  the  imputation 
And  there  is  another  thing  of  which  we  think  we  are 
not  quite  ignorant.  "\Ye  are  not  quite  ignorant  of  what 
kind  of  spirit  and  equity  it  is  that  can  circulate  a 
slanderous  charge  against  a  whole  body  of  Christians 
without  the  shadow  of  evidence  on  which  to  base  it,  and 
then  summon  them  to  the  bar  of  public  opinion  to 
prove  their  innocence,  before  their  guilt  can  even  be  pre- 
sumed, and,  because  they  do  not  choose  to  obey  the 
summons,  no  matter  when  nor  by  what  petty  bigot 
served,  set  them  down  as  guilty.  We  think  we  know 
something  of  this  spirit,  and  also  of  those  in  whom  it 
resides.  But  we  will  once  more,  for  the  thousandth 
time,  condescend  to  contradict  the  slander,  and  shall 
leave  Mr.  Jeter  to  acquit  himself  for  its  appearance 
where  we  saw  it  last. 

Upon  the  divinity  of  the  Savior,  his  rank  and  rela- 
tions, though  we  deem  them  of  infinite  moment  and 
transcendently  sublime,  we  yet  think  it  neither  desirable 
nor  necessary  to  speculate.  "We  shall  therefore  be  con- 
tent for  the  present  with  the  following  concise  and  plain 
statements : — 

1.  That  Christ,  in  the  state  in  which  he  existed  as 
the  "Word,  was  as  uncreated  as  the  God  with  whom  he 
existed. 

2.  That  in  his  uncreated  nature  he  is  as  perfectly 
divine,  in  the  most  essential  sense  of  the  term,  as  the 
Father  who  sent  him, 

3.  But  that  he  had  no  existence  as  the  Son  of  God 
until  born  of  Mary  in  Bethlehem  of  Judea. 

4.  That  in  his  death  he  has  made  an  expiation  for  the 


286 


REVIEW  or  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


sins  of  the  world  so  complete  that  all  may  be  saved  who 
will^  and  so  full  of  merit  that  God  can  be  perfectly  just 
in  justifying  the  sinner  who  believes  in  Jesus. 

5.  That,  in  virtue  of  his  glorious  personal  rank  and 
dignity  as  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  and  the  efficacy 
of  his  death  in  the  redemption  of  sinners,  all  men 
should  honor  him  even  as  the  Father  himself  deserves 
to  be  honored. 

III.  '^Of  the  extent  to  which  the  Arian  notions  of 
Mr.  Stone  did  formerly,  or  do  now,  prevail  among  the 
reformers,  I  have  no  means  of  ascertaining." 

We  shall  be  at  pains,  then,  to  enlighten  Mr.  Jeter,  if  he 
will  consent  not  to  slander  us  for  the  future,  resjDCCting 
a  point  upon  which,  though  he  is  not  ashamed  to  write, 
he  has  still  to  confess  his  ignorance,  by  informing  him 
that  there  is  not  one  known  Arian,  or  Arian  sentiment, 
in  all  our  ranks,  from  Maine  to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific. 

lY.  ^^In  the  town  of  Columbia,  Missouri,  and  its 
vicinity,  the  Disciples,  better  known  as  Campbellites,  are 
somewhat  numerous.  They  were  formerly  professedly 
Arians,  but  some  years  since  they  united  with  the 
followers  of  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell.  I  took  much 
pains  to  learn  whether  their  views  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ  had  undergone  a  satisfactory  change.  All  with 
whom  I  conversed  on  the  subject  concurred  in  testify- 
ing that  they  reject  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity 
and  of  his  substitutional  and  piacular  sufferings.'' 

'Now,  how  extremely  to  be  regretted  it  is  that  these 
brethren  did  not  know  that  there  was  a  reverend  in- 
quisitor among  them,  who,  in  the  genuine  secret  S2:)ir]t 
of  a  Jesuit,  was  inquiring  into  their  faith  with  a  view 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  287 

of  pronouncing  them  all  heretics,  that  they  might,  low- 
bowed  to  the  earth,  have  presented  him  evidence  that 
their  views  had  undergone  a  satisfactory  change"  ! 
But  we  are  curious  to  know  who  and  how  many  consti- 
tuted the  ^^all"  of  whom  Mr.  Jeter  was  at  so  ^^much 
pains"  to  seek  the  information  which  was  the  object 
of  his  most  Christian  solicitude.  Did  he  go  to  these 
brethren  themselves  to  learn  what  their  views  were,  or 
what  they  had  been,  or  whether  in  reality  their  views 
had  ever  needed  a  change?  Or  did  he  go  to  their 
bigoted  religious  enemies?  Of  course  a  person  of  Mr. 
Jeter's  divine  aifection  for  the  Truth  would  go  to  the 
only  party  from  whom  in  such  cases  the  Truth  can  be 
learned. 

But  the  church  at  Columbia  was  never  Arian,  pro- 
fessedly or  otherwise,  never  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
and  never  rejected  his  death  as  an  expiation  for  the  sins 
of  the  world.  The  charge  cannot  be  sustained  except 
by  the  testimony  of  lying  lips. 

Y.  "One  of  the  professors  of  the  University  of  Mis- 
souri (situated  at  this  place)  informed  me  that  in  a  con- 
versation which  he  held  with  Mr.  A.,  a  distinguished 
preacher  of  the  denomination  in  this  State,  he  most  dis- 
tinctly repudiated  these  vital  principles  of  the  evangelic 
system." 

If  the  professor  here  alluded  to  was  at  the  time  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Baptist  church,  and  subsequently  president 
of  William  Jewell  College  in  this  State,  we  have  only  to 
say  that  we  do  not  go  about  to  contradict  the  fables 
of  an  old  wife  whose  feeble  mind  and  small  bitter  enmity 
eminently  fit  him  to  be  the  author  of  the  truthless  tale 


2S8 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


here  attributed  to  liim,  and  which  has  owed  to  him  its 
currency  wherever  his  slow  nature  has  enabled  him  to 
circulate  it. 

But  if  the  professor  was  any  person  else,  and  if  the 
A.  alluded  to  was  Mr.  T.  M.  Allen,  of  this  State, 
who  then  was,  and  still  is,  living  near  the  University, 
we  have  then  to  state, — 

1.  That  Mr.  Allen  never  did,  either  in  conversation 
with  the  professor  aforesaid  or  with  any  one  else,  deny 
the  divinity  of  Christ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  he 
then  was,  and  now  is,  a  profound  believer  in  that  doc- 
trine. 

2.  That  IMr.  Allen  never  did,  either  expressly  or  by 
imj)lication,  deny  that  Christ  died  to  expiate  the  sins 
of  the  world;  but  that,  on  the  other  hand,  he  cordially 
believes  in  and  distinctly  affirms  the  doctrine,  in  the 
most  unequivocal  sense  of  the  terms. 

While  Mr.  Jeter  saw  fit  to  confine  himself  to  general 
issues,  we  thought  it  proper  to  join  issue  with  him  gene- 
rally; but,  since  he  has  thought  it  necessary  to  descend 
to  special  cases  and  particular  persons  and  to  implicate 
honorable  men  in  what  he  says,  we  also  deem  it  ne- 
cessary to  descend  to  particular  rejoinders.  And  we 
imagine  he  will  find  it  something  easier  to  quibble  over 
general  issues  than  to  acquit  himself  before  the  public 
for  making  specific  charges  against  good  men  and  inno- 
cent churches  which  he  cannot  sustain* 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


289 


SECTION  II. 

Our  growing  desire  to  be  accounted  orthodox.^' 
Upon  this  subject  Mr.  Jeter  delivers  himself  thus : — 
''He  has  been  a  careless  observer  of  Campbellism  who 
has  not  perceived  its  effort  to  get  rid  of  the  odium 
theologicum  by  conforming  its  teachings  more  and  more 
to  the  popular  views.''  And  again : — "  There  is  manifestly 
a  growing  desire  among  the  reformers  to  he  accounted  evan- 
gelical j  orthodox,  and  regular.  A  striking  proof  of  this 
remark  was  furnished,  not  long  since,  in  the  city  of 
St.  Louis,  Missouri.  There  was  a  Christian  association 
formed  in  that  city.  The  members  of  the  association 
were  required  to  be  members  of  some  ^evangelical 
church.'  Applicants  for  admission  from  the  Christian 
or  Eeformed  church  were  rejected,  on  the  ground  that 
they  furnished  no  evidence  of  being  'evangelical.'  To 
obviate  the  difficulty,  a  prominent  member  of  the  church, 
with,  it  is  stated,  the  concurrence  of  the  pastor  and 
other  leading  members,  drew  up  and  presented  a  state- 
ment of  the  doctrines  held  by  the  church.  Here  follows 
the  creed." 

To  be  able  to  appreciate  the  cool  impudence  with 
which  the  author  of  these  excerpts  can  falsify  our  posi- 
tion in  a  given  case,  any  one  must  carefully  read  his 
book.  There  is  no  assertion  which  he  is  not  ready  to 
make,  provided  only  it  can  have  the  effect,  in  his  judg- 
ment, to  depreciate  us  in  the  eyes  of  the  public  and  to 
make  it  appear  that  we  are  inconsistent  and  contra- 
dictory.   He  is  not  ignorant  of  the  just  indifference  with 

25  T 


290  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

which  Mr.  Campbell  has  hitherto  borne  himself  towards 
every  doctrine  which  had  no  higher  claims  on  his  confi- 
dence than  its  being  merely  orthodox;  and  yet  he  now 
has  the  hardihood  to  accuse  Mr.  Campbell  of  a  desire  to 
be  the  thing  he  hates.  Had  Mr.  Campbell  ever  written 
a  line  against  polytheism,  Mr.  Jeter  could  with  as  much 
truth  have  called  him  a  polytheist  as  he  now  accuses  him 
of  a  desire  to  be  accounted  orthodox,  and  for  precisely 
the  same  reason.  If  there  is  any  one  thing  on  account 
of  which  Mr.  Campbell  has  reason  to  feel  a  just  and  an 
honorable  pride,  and  for  which  he  deserves  to  be  crowned 
with  the  plaudits  of  his  brethren  and  the  grrititude  of 
the  present  and  future  ages,  it  is  the  noble  independence 
of  mind  and  firmness  with  which  he  has  dissented  from 
that  dogmatic  and  t^-rannical  thing  called  orthodoxy, 
and  the  confidence  and  success  with  which  he  has  taken 
his  appeal  to  the  God  of  truth,  the  Bible,  and  to  a  free 
and  enlightened  people.  And  to  ac-cuse  him  now  of  a 
desire  to  kiss  again  the  fetters  which  bound  him  once 
is  to  falsify  every  feeling  of  his  heart  and  the  best  acts 
of  his  life 

But  not  only  is  3Ir.  Campbell  desirous,"  it  seems, 
of  being  accounted  orthodox,"  but  in  one  of  his  recent 
debates  nothing  so  much  annoyed  him  as  the  quotation  of 
heterodox  sentiments  from  his  early  writings."  Perhaps  so. 
True,  Mr.  Campbell  has  not,  at  times,  hesitated  to  state 
that  his  views  (where  such  was  the  case)  were  in  unison 
with  those  held  by  the  self-styled  orthodox  parties. 
But  why  ?  Was  it  because  he  desired  to  be  "  accounted 
orthodox"  ?  or  because  he  conceived,  that  thc^e  parties 
added  aught  of  weight  to  his  views?  or  that  his  views 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  291 

were  either  the  better  or  the  nearer  right  because  held 
by  these  parties  ?  He  knows  not  Mr.  Campbell  who  so 
reasons.  Ko.  There  are  certain  very  weak-minded  men 
who  are  ready  to  be  Mussulman,  Jew,  or  Christian,  justi 
as  it  happens  to  be  the  vogue  to  dub  Mussulman,  Jew, 
or  Christian  orthodox  :  for  their  sake  !Mr.  Campbell  has 
at  times  consented  to  sound  the  magic  note  that  on 
certain  points  he  is  orthodox. 

Eut  who  is  it  (we  have  a  desire  to  know)  who  has 
constituted  Mr.  Jeter,  and  the  ''Christian  sects"  with 
whom  he  agrees  on  one  thing  and  dissents  on  three, 
the  only  orthodox  people  in  the  world?  Or  when  and 
where,  since  Christ  ascended,  has  it  been  determined 
what  orthodoxy  is?  In  what  Council  of  Kice,  Constanti- 
nople, or  Trent,  have  these  questions  been  decided? 
But  in  what  does  orthodoxy  consist  ?  Doxa  means  an 
opinion;  and  ortho  means  correct.  Hence  orthodoxy- 
must  mean  a  correct  opinion.  But  whose  business  is 
it  to  determine  whose  opinions  are  correct  ?  Has  Mr. 
Jeter  the  right  to  pronounce  on  the  opinions  of  the 
Catholic?  K  so,  who  invested  him  with  it?  Has  not 
the  Catholic  an  equal  right  to  pronounce  on  the  opinions  ♦ 
of  Mr.  Jeter  ?  Or  are  the  opinions  of  ^Ir.  Jeter  correct 
merely  because  he  himself  pronounces  them  so  ?  Must 
we  not  by  the  same  rule  admit  the  opinions  of  the 
Catholic  to  be  correct  likewise  ?  Shall  the  voice  of  the 
majority  settle  the  question  ?  Then,  alas  for  ''Christian 
eects" !  But  Mr.  Jeter  will  doubtless  say  orthodoxy 
eonsists  in  correct  views  of  the  fundamental  principlcvg 
of  Christianity.  Granted.  But  whose  business  is  it  to 
dete7*mi^€  whose  views  of  those  principles  are  correct 


292  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

and  Tvhose  not?  Who  has  constituted  the  Baptist 
church  judge  to  determine  the  correctness  of  our  views? 
or  who  has  been  constituted  judge  to  determine  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  views  of  the  Baptist  church?  The  truth 
is,  this  whole  question  of  orthodoxy  among  Christian 
sects"  resolves  itself  into  the  following  ridiculous  posi- 
tion:— that  the  Baptists  agree  to  call  the  Methodists 
orthodox,  and  the  Methodists  consent  to  return  the 
compliment ;  they  two  agree  to  call  the  Presbyterians 
orthodox,  and  the  Presbyterians  consent  to  return  the 
compliment ;  and  what  they  three  agree  to  call  ortho- 
dox, that  is  orthodox.  In  other  words,  I  will  agree  to 
glorify  you  if  you  will  consent  to  glorify  me ;  and  we 
two  will  agree  to  glorify  some  one  else  if  some  one  else 
will  consent  to  glorify  us ;  and  what  we  three  agree  to 
glorify  that  let  all  men  glorify,  for  that  is  glorious  I  It 
can  hardly  be  wondered  at  that  ]\Ir.  Campbell  should 
have  felt  more  of  contempt  than  veneration  for  a  coali- 
tion for  such  self-exalting  and  anti-Christian  ends. 

But  of  the  fact  that  ^Hhere  is  manifestly  a  growing  • 
desire  among  the  reformers  to  be  accounted  evangelical, 
orthodox,  and  regular,  a  striking  proof  was  furnished, 
not  long  since,  in  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  Missouri." 

The  transaction  here  alluded  to  was  purely  a  local 
matter,  the  work  of  a  few  individuals  on  their  own  re- 
sponsibility, and,  as  such,  j^assed  at  the  time  with  little 
notice,  and  without  exciting  the  slightest  interest  in  our 
ranks.  We  confess  we  never  suspected  it  as  being  wrong 
until  we  saw  it  smutted  with  the  approbation  of  Mr. 
Jeter.  Certainly  these  brethren  are  far  too  honorable 
and  high-mir.ded  not  to  feel  mortified  at  the  circum- 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  293 

stance.  Neither  would  they  have  pressed  their  claim  to 
be  admitted  into  the  association  referred  to  in  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  did,  had  they  not  witnessed  efforts  to 
exclude  them  from  it  in  order  to  expose  to  public  con- 
tempt the  cause  which  lay  near  their  hearts,  headed  by 
a  man  whose  passionless  nature,  Jesuitism,  and  sour 
heart,  strangely  fit  him  to  act  the  chief  part  in  all  trans- 
actions w^here  trickery  and  perfidy  are  to  be  enacted. 
We  honor  these  brethren,  but,  most  of  all,  the  lamented 
one  nov/  dead,  for  not  suffering  themselves  to  be  dis- 
graced when  the  object  was  that  their  disgrace  should 
terminate  on  their  holy  religion.  But  he  knows  them 
not  who  cites  this  act  to  prove  that  either  they,  or  we 
as  a  people,  have  a  growing  desire  to  be  accounted 
orthodox;  and,  as  for  the  whim  that  their  doctrinal 
summary  is  a  creed,  it  excites  not  even  our  smile. 

SECTION  III. 
The  effect  Mr.  Jetefs  book  has  had. 
Whatever  may  be  the  intentions  of  an  author,  or  the 
merits  of  his  book  in  other  respects,  if  its  effects  have 
been  bad  the  book  itself  cannot  be  good.  Tried  by 
this  rule,  and  too  severe  a  judgment  cannot  be  pro- 
nounced on  !Mr.  Jeter's  book.  Its  effects  have  been 
bad, — bad  to  the  full  extent  of  its  influence,  bad  with- 
out one  compensating  trait.  If  such  was  the  result 
intended  by  its  author,  we  shall  certainly  admit  that 
be  has,  with  a  skill  nothing  less  than  matchless,  adapted 
his  work  to  its  end ;  but,  if  such  was  not  the  result  in- 
tended, then  surely  he  is  the  most  unfortunate  of  blun- 

2S* 


294  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 


derers.  When  Tve  say  we  are  mortified  at  the  appear- 
ance of  this  book  at  this  particular  crisis  and  grieved 
at  the  effect  it  has  had^  we  but  feebly  express  our  feel- 
ings. 

In  repelling  the  attacks  of  the  Baptists  in  time  past, 
our  brethren  may  not  always  have  been  either  as  wise 
as  serpents  or  as  harmless  as  doves.  But,  if  for  this 
there  is  not  a  justification  to  be  pleaded,  there  is  at 
least  this  apology, — that  they  were  feeble  and  felt  it; 
and  the  attacks  made  on  them  came  from  a  party  which 
was  strong,  and  were  made  in  a  manner  so  unjust  and 
so  unkind  as  almost  of  necessity  to  provoke  the  spirit 
in  which  they  were  met.  But  what  most  of  all  made 
these  attacks  painful  to  us,  was  the  fact  that,  in  making 
them,  the  Baptists  sought  and  accepted  abetment  from 
their  old  hereditar^^  foes, — the  infant-sprinkling  sects, — 
from  whom,'  in  time  gone,  they  had  suffered  the  grossest 
injuries,  and  from  whom  they  were  still  receiving  daily 
insults  and  contemptuous  jeers.  We  thought  it  mean 
in  the  Baptists  to  join  these  half  Eoman  Catholic  sects 
— who  had  filled  the  church  (so  called)  with  flesh  and 
blood,  and,  indeed,  had  wellnigh  completed  its  corrup- 
tion— in  a  cmsade  against  a  body  of  people  who  were 
conscientiously  contending  for  the  supremacy  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  the  purity  of  the  ordinances  of 
Jesus  Christ  as  defined  by  him  and  delivered  to  the 
world.  But  it  happened  that  these  sects  and  the  Bap- 
tists agreed  in  three  things  : — 1st,  in  the  use  of  a  cabal- 
istic Trinity,  —  something  of  which  the  Bible  knows 
nothing;  2d,  in  a  supernatural  agency  in  conversion, — 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  295 


another  thing  about  which  the  Bible  is  silent ;  and  3d, 
in  relating  an  experience  (except  in  the  case  of  infants) 
before  baptism  or  sprinkling, — a  third  thing  of  which 
the  Bible  says  nothing.  And,  agreeing  in  these  three 
things,  they  agreed  also  in  a  fourth ;  to  wit,  in  perse- 
cuting us, — a  matter  about  which  the  Bible  is  not  silent ; 
for  it  is  still,  as  it  was  in  time  past,  peculiar  to  those 
who  are  born  after  the  flesh  to  persecute  those  who  are 
bom  after  the  Spirit. 

But  as  our  brethren  grew  stronger  they  became  more 
patient  of  injuries;  and  as  they  grew  more  able  to  re- 
pel attacks  the  Baptists  grew  less  inclined  to  repeat 
them.  Consequently,  the  parties  had,  to  a  very  great 
extent  at  least,  both  ceased  to  attack  and  to  be  at- 
tacked. Both  weie  tranquil;  and,  clearly,  a  more  ' 
friendly  spirit  was  beginning  to  prevail  among  them. 

At  this  juncture  the  noble  purpose  to  give  to  the 
world  a  corrected  version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  began 
to  find  emphatic  utterance  at  many  a  lip  and  to  meet 
with  a  grand  response  in  many  a  heart.  The  Baptists 
and  our  brethren,  in  the  providence  of  God,  were  called 
together  to  consider  of  and  do  the  work.  The  most 
amiable  feelings  swayed  them  both.  They  had  met, 
not  now  for  war,  but  for  counsel,  and,  if  nco  in  the 
spirit  of  brethren,  at  least  in  that  of  friends.  The 
work  of  conciliation  went  finely  on.  "We  were  not 
willing  to  affirm  that  we  were  so  good  that  we  might 
not  grow  better,  nor  the  Baptists  that  they  were  so 
wise  that  they  might  not  grow  wiser,  by  the  inter- 
course.   Indeed,  many  went  so  far  (we  confess  we  were 


29G  REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED. 

not  of  the  number)  as  to  contemplate  a  prospect,  distant 
ttiougli  and  dim  they  deemed  it,  when  an  understanding 
might  be  come  to  on  the  points  of  difference  between 
the  parties,  and  when  the  gospel  should  be  pleaded  by 
the  united  strength  and  wisdom  of  both.  The  view  was 
enchanting. 

But  at  this  crisis  'Mi\  Jeter's  book  appears, — one  of 
the  meanest  of  all  the  attacks  that  have  been  made  on 
us.  It  was  at  once  indorsed  by  the  great  men  and  the 
small,  the  upstarts  and  doctors,  of  the  denomination, 
and  its  merits  heralded  all  over  the  land.  Their  spirits 
rose  high,  their  old  bigotry  revived,  their  subsiding  ill 
feelings  flowed  back,  they  again  chuckled  at  their  ima- 
ginary superiority,  and  thanked  God,  in  true  Pharisaic 
style,  that  they  were  not  as  other  men.  These  are  a 
few  of  the  effects  the  work  has  had.  It  is  due,  how- 
ever, to  many  a  noble  man  in  the  Baptist  ranks,  (for 
there  are  many  there,)  to  express  the  belief  that  the 
contents  of  this  book  do  not  enjoy  the  sanction  of  all 
who  are  even  Baptists,  nor  its  appearance  at  this  par- 
ticular time  their  approbation. 

On  the  other  side,  the  insulting  spirit  of  the  book, 
its  paltry  contents,  but  especially  the  indorsement  of 
the  denomination  it  has  received,  have  only  served  to 
excite  in  our  ranks  feelings  of  mingled  pity  and  deep 
disgust  at  the  whole  thing,  and  to  make  us  wish  that 
in  all  time  to  come  we  may  grow  less  like  the  Baptists, 
who  have  sanctioned  the  work,  than  we  now  are ;  and 
to  pray  that  the  disastrous  event  may  never  happen 
when  we  shall  be  one  people,  provided  its  spirit  and 


REVIEW  OF  CAMPBELLISM  EXAMINED.  297 

contents  shall  be  made  the  basis  of  the  union.  These 
are  a  few  of  the  effects  to  be  ascribed  to  Mr.  Jeter's 
book ;  and  with  the  simple  statement  of  them  we  now 
take  leave  of  both  him  and  it,  feeling  that  in  the  one 
we  part  from  a  misguided  man,  in  the  other  from  a 
graceless  thing. 


TH£  END. 


C ATALOaUE 

OP 

VALUABLE  BOOKS, 

PUBLISHED  BT 

J    B.  LIPPINCOTT  &  CO., 

(LATE  LirPINCOTT,  GRAMBO  &  CO.) 

No.  20  NORTH  FOURTH  STREET,  PHILADELPHIA; 

C05SISTIXG  OF  a'large  assort:*ext  Of 
BIBLES,  PRAYER-BOOKS,  COMMENTARIES,  STANDARD  POETS, 

MEDICAL.  THEOLOGICAL,  AND  MISCELLANEOUS  WORKS.  ETC.. 

PAETICULARLT  3C1TABLE  FOB 

PUBLIC  AND  PRIVATE  LIBRARIES; 
Por  Sale  by  Booksellers  and  Conntry  Merchants  generally 
throughout  the  United  States. 

THE  BEST  AND  MOST  COMPLETE  FAMILY  COMMENTARY. 

The  Compreliensive  Commentary  on  the  Holy  Bible; 

COVTAIXINO 

THE  TEXT  ACCORDING  TO  THE  AUTHORIZED  VERSION, 

SCOTT'S   MARGINAL  K  EFKRENCES ;    MATIHKW  HKNKV'S  fOMMEN- 
TARY,  CONDENSED.   BUT  CONTAINING    EVERY  USEFUL 
THOUGHT;  THE  PRACTICAL  OBSERVATIONS  OF 
REV.  THOMAS  SCOTT,  D.D.; 

WITH  EXTEXSITB 

EXPLANATORY,  CRITICAL,  AND  PHILOLOGICAL  NOTES, 
8elerted  from  Scott,  Doddridee,  Gill,  Adam  Clarke,  Patrick,  Poole,  liOwth, 
r.cnler,  Harmer,  Calmet,  Rosenraueller,  Bloomfield,  Stuart,  Bush,  Dwigbt^ 
•nd  many  other  writer*  on  the  Scrijitiire?. 

Tlie  whole  de,sijrned  to  be  a  di^'est  and  combination  of  the  adTantaee*  of 
MM  best  Bible  Commeutaries,  and  embraciog  nearly  all  that  is  valuable  in 

HENRY,  SCOTT,  AND  DODDRIGE. 
EDITED   BY  REV.  WILLIAM  JENKS,  D.  D., 

PASTOR  OP  GREEN  STREET  CHUBCH,  BOSTO.V. 

Embellished  with  five  portraits,  and  other  eleprant  engravings,  from  steel 

ilate^;  with  pe'^erid  maps  and  many  wood-cuts,  illustrative  of  Scriptura 
lanners.  Customs.  Antiquities,  Ac.    In  6  vols,  super-royal  8vo. 
Including  Supplement,  bound  in  cloth,  sheep,  calf,  4c,  varying  in 

Price  from  $10  to  $15. 

The  whole  forming  the  most  valuable  aa  well  as  the  cheapest  Commeiv 
ary  In  the  world. 

(1> 


).  B.  IIPPINCOTT  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


In  one  super-royal  volume. 

DESIGNED  TO  ACCOMPAXT 

THE  FAMILY  BIBLE; 

OR, 

HENRY'S,  SCOTT'S,  CLARICE'S,  GILL'S,  OR  OTHER  COMMENTARIES 

ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES, 

In  one  super-royal  volume. 

DKRIVED  PRINCIPALLY  FROM  THE  MANNERS.  CUSTOMS.  ANTIQUmES 
TRADI  I  IONS.  ANU  FORMS  OF  SPEECH,  K'TES,  CLLMATE.  WOiJCS 
OF  ART.  AND  LITERATURE  OF  THE  EASrFRN  NATIONS: 

EMBODYING  A^L  THAT  IS  VALUABLE  IN  THE  WORKS  OF 

ROBERTS,  HARMER,  BURDER,  PAXTON,  CHANDLER, 

ind  the  most  celebrated  Oriental  trarellers.   Embracing  also  the  sul^ect 
of  the  Fulfilment  of  Pri.pheey,  as  exiiibi'^i  by  Keith  and  others; 
with  descriptionp  ot  the  present  state  of  countries  and 
places  mentioned  in  the  Sacred  Writings. 

ILLUSTRATED  bV  NUMEROUS  LANDSCAPE  ENGRAVINGS, 

FROM  SKETCHES  TAKEN  ON  THE  SPOT. 
EDI'iED  BY  REV.  GEORGE  BUSH, 
Prof,  of  Hebrew  and  Onenlai  Literature  in  the  N.  Y.  City  Unirersitj. 

THE  ILLUSTRATED  CONCORDANCE, 

In  one  volume,  royal  8vo. 

A  new,  full,  and  complete  Concordance;  illustrated  with  monumental, 
traditional,  and  oriental  engravings,  founded  on  Butterworth'.s,  with  Cru- 
den's  definitions:  form'ng,  it  is  believed,  on  many  accounts,  a  more  ralu- 
able  work  than  either  Butterworth,  Cruden,  or  any  other  similar  book  is 
ILe  language. 

LTPPINCCTT'S  STANDARD  EDITIONS  OF 

THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER; 

IN  SIX  DIFFERENT  SIZES 

LLLUSTRATED  WTTH  A  NUMBER  OF  STEEL  PLATES  AND 
ILLUMINATIONS. 


COMPEBH ENDING  "^HB  MOST  VARIED  AND  SPLENDID  ASSOET- 
MKNT  IN  THB  UNITED  STATES. 


).  B.  LIPPINCOTT  8c  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


8 


LIPPIXCOTT'S  EDITIONS  OF 

THE  HOLY  BIBLE, 

SIX  DIFFERENT  SIZES. 

Printed  in  the  best  manner,  with  beautiful  type,  oij  the  finest  sired  pap«r, 
and  bouud  in  tlie  most  splendid  and  substauiiid  styles.  M'arranted  to  be  oot- 
rect,  and  e<iual  to  the  best  Knglish  editions,  at  a  much  lower  pria?.  To  bt 
h.sd  with  or  without  pUtes;  the  publishers  having  supplied  themselves  with 
©▼er  fifty  steel  engravings,  by  the  first  artii<tfi. 

Baxter's  ComprehenslTe  Bible^ 

Royal  quarto,  containing  the  various  readings  and  marginal  notes,  d-'squl- 
Bitions  on  the  genuineness,  autheuticity.  and  iusj.iralion  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures: intro«luctory  and  concluding  remarks  to  each  look;  philologii^l  and 
explanatory  notes;  tables  of  contents,  arranged  in  historical  order;  a  chro- 
nological index,  and  various  other  matter;  forming  a  suitable  book  for  the 
rtudy  of  clergymeu,  Sabbath-school  teachers  and  studeuts. 

The  Oxford  Q,uarto  Bible, 

Without  note  or  comment,  universally  admitted  to  be  the  most  beautifol 

family  Bible  extant. 

Crown  Octavo  Bible, 

Printed  with  large  clear  type,  making  a  most  convenient  BiUe 
for  family  use. 

Polyglot  Bible. 

The  Sunday-School  Teacher's  Polyglot  Bible,  with  Maps,  4c. 

The  Oxford  18  mo.  Bible. 
This  is  an  extremely  handsome  and  convenient  Pew  Bible. 
Agate  3Smo.  Bible, 
Printed  with  larger  type  than  any  other  small  pocket  edition  extant. 
33mo.  Diamond  Pocket  Bible, 
The  neatest,  smallest,  and  cheapest  edition  of  the  Bible  publiehed. 


CONSTANTLY  ON  HAND, 

A  large  ai^sortment  of  BIBLES,  bound  in  the  most  splendid  and  costly 
■tyles,  with  gold  and  silver  ornaments,  suitable  for  presentation;  ranging 
In  price  from  $10  00  tc  JQOO  00. 

A  liberal  discount  made  to  Booksellers  and  Agents  by  the  Publishers. 


ENCYCLOP/EDIA  OF  RELIGIOUS  KNOWLEDGE; 

OB,  niCTIONAKV  «)F  THE  BIBLE  1  HLUl.OGY.  RELIGIOUS  BHiGRAPHY 
ALL  RELIGIONS.  ECCLLSIASTICaL  HIS'I'ORY.  ANL)  MISSIONS. 

In  one  volume,  rot/ a  I  Svn 


* 


J.  B.  LIPPINCOTT  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


JOSEPIIUS'S  (FLAVIUS)  WORKS, 

FAMILY  EDITION. 

BY  THE  LATE  WM.  WHISTON,  A.M. 

FROM  THE  LAST  LONDON    EDITION,  COMPLETE. 

One  Tolume,  beautifully  illustrated  with  Steel  IMates,  and  the  onlj  readabl* 
edition  published  in  this  country. 

FAMILY  PRAYERS  AND  HYMNS, 

ADAPTED  TO  FAMILY  WORSHIP, 

AND 

TABLES  FOR  THE  REGULAR  READING  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES. 

BY  REV.   S.  C.  WINCHESTER,  A.M. 
Late  Pastor  of  the  Sixth  Presl.yttriHii  Church.  Philadelphia;  and  the 
Presbyterian  Church  at  Natchez,  Miss. 

One  volume,  12mo. 

CONilSTINO  OP 

ANFCDOTES  ILLUSTRATIVE  OF  THE  CHARACTER  Of  ^«INISTERS  OF 

RELIGION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
BYJOSEPH    BELCUER,  D.D., 

Editor  of  "  The  Complete  Works  of  Andrew  Fuller,"  "  Robert  Hall."  Slc 
One  volume,  12mo. 

THETllHlMiTpROGRESS, 

BY  JOHN  BUNYAN. 

With  a  Portrait  and  Memoir  of  the  Author,  and  twenty-five  Illa»« 
rations,  from  Original  Designs.   One  vol.  ISmo.    50  centa. 

Oi.  !01  Plain  and  Short  Discourses  on  Hie  Principal  Doctrines  of  ik  Gospel 

DiTENDp:D  FOR  THE  USE  OF  FAMILIES,  SUNDAY-SCHOOLS, 
OR  COMPANIES  ASSEMBLED  FOR  RELIGIOUS  IN- 
STRUCTION IN  COUNTRY  VILLAGES. 
BY  GEORGE  BURDER, 
To  wh'ch  is  added  to  each  Sermon,  a  Short  Prayer,  with  some  General 
Prayers  for  Families,  Schools,  ic,  at  the  end  of  the  work, 

COMPLETE,   IN  ONE  VOLDMB,  OCTAVO. 


J.  B.  LIPPINCOTT  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


6 


SPLENDID  LIBRARY  EDITIONS. 


ILLUSTRATED  STANDARD  POETS. 

ELEGANTLY  PRINTED,  ON  FINE  PAPER,  AND  UNIFORM  IN  SIZl 
AND  STYLE. 


The  fDllowing  Editions  of  Standard  British  Poets  are  illustrated  with  nain»- 
rous  Steel  Engravings,  and  may  be  had  in  all  varieties  of  binding. 

BYRON'S  WORKS. 

COMPLETE,  IN  ONE  VOLUME,  OCTAVO. 

INCLUDING  ALL  HIS  SUPPRESSED  AND  ATTRIBUTED  POEMS;  WITH  SIl 
BEAUTIFUL  ENGRAVLNGS. 


THE  POETICAL  WORKS  OF  MRS.  HEMANS. 

COMPLETE,  IN  ONE  VOLUME,  OCTAVO  ;  WITH  SEVEN 
BEAUTIFUL  ENGRAVINGS. 


MILTON,  YOUNG,  GRAY,  BEATTIE,  AND  COLLINS'S 
POETICAL  WORKS. 

COMPLETE  IN  ONE  VOLUME,  OCTAVO. 
WITH   SIX    BEAUTIFUL  ENGRAVINGS. 


COMPLETE  IN  ONE  VOLUME,  OCTAVO. 

Iiudadiilg  two  hundred  and  fifty  Letters,  and  sundry  Poems  of  Cowpitff, 
a«Ter  before  published  in  this  country;  and  a  new  and  interesting  Me- 
moir of  Thomson,  and  upwards  of  t«venty  new  Poems,  printed 
for  the  first  time,  from  his  own  Manuscrijits,  taken 
n-om  a  late  Edition  of  the  Aldine  Poets,  now 
being  published  in  London. 

WITH  SEVEN  BEAUTlFUl  ENGRAVINGS, 


6 


J.  B.  LIPPINCOTT  &  CO.'S  PUBL.CATIONS. 


THE  POETICAL  WORKS  OF  ROGERS,  CAMPBELL,  MONT- 
GOMRY,  LA^tB,  AND  KIRKE  WHITE. 

COMPLETE    IN    ONE    VOLUME,  OCTATO. 

WITH  SIX  BEAUTIFUL  ENGRAVINGS. 


CRABBE,  HEBER,  AND  POLLOK'S  POETICAL  WORKS. 

COMPLETE  IN  ONE  VOLUME,  OCTAVO. 
WITH   SIX    BEAUTIFUL  ENGRAVINGS. 

No  Library  can  be  considered  complete  without  a  copy  of  the  above  be»u> 
tlfal  and  cheap  editions  of  the  English  Poets;  and  persons  ordering  all  oi 
any  of  them,  will  please  say,  Lippincott,  Grambo  &  Co.'s  illustrated  edition. 

A  COMPLETE 

BirtinHnrii  nf  l^^htllul  diiintatinns : 

COMPRISING  THE  MOST  EXCELLENT  AND  APPROPRIATE  PASSAGES  IN 
THE  OLD  BRITISH  POETS  ;  WITH  CHOICE  AN  D  COPIOUS  SEl  ECTIONS 
FROM  THE  BEST  MODERN  BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN  POETS 

EDITED  BY  SARAH  JOSEPHA  HALE. 

As  nightinirales  do  upon  glow-worms  feed, 
So  poets  live  upon  tiie  Iivuig  light 
Of  Nature  auJ  uf  Beauty. 

Bailey'3  Festua. 

BMUtifUlly  illustrated  with  Engravings.   In  one  super-royal  oct»TO 
volume,  in  various  bindings. 

THE  DIAMOND  EDITION  OF  BYRON. 

THE  POETICAL  W0"RKS  OF  LORD  BYRON. 

WITH  A  SKETCH  OF  HIS  LIFE. 

COMPLETE  IS  OXE  NEAT  DUODECIMO  VOLUME,  WITH  STEEL  PLATES. 


THE  POETICAL  WORKS  OF  THOMAS  MOORE, 

COLLECTED  BY  HIMSELF. 

COMPLETE  IN  ONE  VOLUME. 

This  work  is  published  uniform  with  Byron,  from  the  last  London  edition, 
and  is  the  most  complete  printed  in  the  country. 


B.  IIPPINCOTT  86  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


THE  DIAMOND  EDITION  OF  SHAKSPEARE. 

(COMPLETB  IN  ONE  VOLUME.) 
INCLUDING  A  COPIOUS  GLOSSARY. 
UNIFORM  WITH  BYRON  AND  MOORE. 
Tin  rOKEOOIKS  WOBKB  CAN  B2  HAD  Vi  gZYSBAL  YAJUSTXBS  07  BIKDIK6. 

ICHOOLCRAFT'S  GREAT  NATIONAL  WORK  ON  THE  INDIAN  TRIBES  Of 

THE  UNITED  STATES. 

WITH  BSAUTirVI.  AND  ACCUKATS  COLOUKED  lUUSTKAnOirS. 

HISTORICAL  AND  STATISTICAL  INFORMATION 

R£8PBCTINa  TU 

fflSTORY,  COKDITION  AND  PROSPECTS 

OP  THB 

COLLECTED  AND  PREPARED  CINDER  THE  DIRECTION  (  *     HE  BUREAC 
OF  LNDIAN  AKFAIRS,  PER  ACT  OF  MARCH  3.  IS 

B7  SZlira?  R.  SCHOOI.CR^JE*T,  Zi  .ZK 

ILLUSTRATED  BY  S.  EASTMAN,  Cam,  U.  S.  A. 

PUBLISHED  BT  AUTHOKITT  OP  00NQRZS8. 

€lit  Crnctllrr's  nni  Cnnrist's  §n\h 

THROUGH  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  CANADA.  ETC 

OONTAINING  THE  ROUTES  OF  TRAVEL  BY  STEAMBOAT.  STAGE,  \ND 
CANAL;  TOGETHER  WITH   DESCRIPTIONS  OF.  AND  ROUTES  TO, 
THE  PRINCIPAL  PLACES  OF  FASHIO.V ABLE  AND  H^JALTHFUL 
RESORT;  WITH  OTHER  VALUABLE  INFORMAllON. 

ACCOMPA.VtED  BT 

AN  ENTIRELY  NEW  AND  AUTHENTIC  MAP  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

DfCLUDINQ  CALLFORN^A,  OREGON,  Ac,  AND  A  MAP  01  THl 
ISLAND  OF  CUBA. 


BY   W.  WILLIAMS. 


8 


J.  B.  LIPPiNCCTT  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


THE  POWER  A;\D  PRJGRESS_OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

THE  UNITED  STATES;  l[s  Power  and  Progresa 

BY  GUILLAOME  TELL  POUSSIN, 

LlTl  MINISTER  OF  Tn£  RXPCBUC  OP  FRANCE  TO  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
FIRST  AMERICAN,  FROM  THE  THIRD  PARIS  EDITION. 

TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  FRENCH  BY  EDMOND  L.  DU  BARRY,  M.D. 

SURGEON,  CNITLD  STATED  NAVT^. 

!>'  ONE  LARGE  OCTAVO  VOLCM*. 

BIGLAND'S  NATURAL  HISTORY. 

0?  ANIMALS,  BIRDS,  FISU  ES,  REPTILES,  AND  IN8ECT& 
ILLUSTRATED  WITH  NUMEROUS  AND  BEAUTIFUL  ENGRAVINGS. 
BY  JOHN  BIOLAND, 

Anther  of  &  "  View  of  the  World,"  "  Letters  on  Universal  History,"  *e. 
Complete  in  one  volume,  \2mo . 

GOLDSMITH'S  ANIMATED  NATURE, 

IN  TWO  VOLUMES,  OCTAVO. 
BEAUTIFULLY  ILLUSTRATED  WITH  385  PLATES. 

(X)>TA1MNG  A  HISTORY  OF  THE  EARTH.  ANIMALS,  BiRDS  AND 
FISHES;   FORMING  THE  MOST  COMPLETE  NATURAL 
HISTORY  EVER  PUBUSHZD. 

A  SYNOPSIS  OF  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  PETER  DENS 

AS  PREPARED  FOR  THE  USE  OF 

ROMISH  SEMINARIES  AND  STUDENTS  OF  THEOLOGY. 

Translated  from  the  Latin  of  the  Mechlin  Edition.  1833, 
BY  JOSEPH  BEEG, 
Formerly  H-ofessor  of  Latin  and  Greek  in  Marshal'  Colleg*. 
ONE  VOLUME.  12uO.  $1. 


J.  B.   IPPINCOTT  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS, 


9 


THE  AMERICAN  GARDENER'S  CALENDAR, 

ADAI*TED  TO  THE  CLIMATK  AND  SEASONS  OF  TUE  UNITED 
STATES. 

CoutAiningj  a  porapleto  account  of  all  the  work  neoe^sa^y  to  be  done  in  the 
Kitchen  Uiinlcu,  FruitGardeu. Orchard,  Vineyard,  Nursery,  I'lcjisure-G round, 
Flower  Garden,  Green-house.  Hot-house,  and  Forcing  Frames,  for  erery 
noutb  La  the  year;  with  ample  Practical  Directions  for  performing  thesam* 
BY  BERNARD  M'MAHON. 
Tenth  Edition,  greatly  improved.    In  one  volume,  octavo. 

MASON'S  FARRIER  AND  STUD  BOOK-NEW  EDITION. 

Price,  $1. 

THE  GENTLEMAN'S  NEW  POCKET  FARRIER: 

OOMPaiSINO  A  OENXR.VL  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  MOBLS  AND  USEFUL  AMMAL, 

THE  HORSE; 

WITH  MODES  OF  MANAGEMENT  IN   ALL  CASES,  AND 
TREATMENT  IN  DISEASE. 

BIT  niCHARD  lyiASOir,  Iff.D., 

Formerly  of  Surry  Ooiiuiy,  Virifima. 

TO  WHICH  IS  ADDED, 

A  PRIZE  ESSAY  ON  MULES;  AND  AN  APPENDIX, 

Oontaining  Recipes  for  Disi-aes  of  Ilorf-es,  Oxen,  Cows,  Calves,  Sheep,  D«gj^ 
Swiub,  &c.,  &c.;  with  Annals  of  tlie  Tnrf,  Anierica.n  Stud> 
Book,  Rules  for  Training,  Racing,  Ac,  &a 

WITH  A  SUPPLEMENT, 
BY  J.  S.  SKINNER, 
Editor  of  the  Farmers'  Library,  New  York,  Ac.,  Sic 


MASON'S  FARRIER-FARMERS'  EDITION, 

Price,  63  Ceuts. 

THE  PRACTICAL  FaIrIER,  FOR  FARMERS: 

COMPRISINQ  A  GENERAL  DESCRIPTION  OP  THE  NOBLB  AND  USEFUL  ANUIAL, 

THE  HORSE; 

WIT4  MODES  OF  MANAGEMENT  IN   ALL  CASES,  AND 
TREATMENT  IN  DISEASE. 

TO  WHICH  IS  ADDED, 

A  PRIZE  ESSAY  ON  MULES)  AND  AN  APPENDIX, 

Oooiaiiung  Recipes  for  Diseases  of  Horses.  Oxen.  Cows.  Calves,  Sheep,  Ihjgs,  Swinc-.  Mo 
BY  RICHARD  MASON,  M.D. 

FORMERLY   OF    SURRY   COUNTY,  VIKdISIA. 

In  ont  volume,  12mo.;  bound  in  cloth^  gilt- 


10 


J.  B.  IIPPINCOTT  &  CO.'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


HINDS'S  FARRIERY  AND_SnJD-EOOK-NEW  EDITION. 
FARRIERY, 

TAUGHT  ON  A  NEW  AND  EASY  PLAN: 

BEI.VO  A 

CrBatisr  nn  tljp  Bisrasrs  anil  ilrriknts  of  tjir  Inm; 

With  Instructions  to  the  Shoeing  Smith,  Farrier,  and  Groom;  preceded  bj 
a  Popular  description  of  the  Animal  Functions  in  Lleiilth, 
and  how  tliese  are  to  be  restored  when  disordered. 

BY  JOHN   HINDS,   VETERINARY  SURGEON. 

With  considerable  Additions  and  Iniprovements,  particularly  adapted  to 
this  country, 

BY  THOMAS  M.  SMITH, 
Veterinary  Sorseou,  and  Meiiil)er  n(  Uih  London  Veleriuary  Medical  Society. 
WITH  A  SUPPLEMENT,  BY  J.  S.  SKINNER. 


TO  CARPENTERS_AND  MECHANICS. 

JUST  PUBLISHED. 
A  NEW  AND  IMPROVED  EDITION  OF 

THE  CARPENTER'S  NEW  GUIDE, 

BEING  A  COMPLETE  BOOK  OF  LINES  FOR 

rreatinof  fully  on  Practical  rieometry,  Ssiffit's  Brick  and  Pla.ster  Grotn*, 
Kicbes  of  every  (les<  ription,  ?ky-lis:ht«.  Lines  for  Rinifs  Hn<l  Domea; 
with  a  (Treat  variety  of  Desijrns  for  K(if)fs.  Trussed  (Jirders, 
Floors,  Domes,  Rridjrcs.  kc,  An«rle  Bars  for  Shop 
Fronts,  &c,  and  Raking  Mouldings. 
A  L80, 

Additional  Plan^  for  various  Stair-Cases,  with  the  Lines  for  prodndng  tha 

Face  and  Fallin-r  Moulds,  never  before  pulilisheil.  and  <rreatly  su- 
perior to  those  tci^en  in  a  formeredition ofthiswork. 

BY  WM.  JOHNSON,  ARCHITECT, 

OP  PHILADELPHIA. 

The  whole  founded  on  true  Geometrical  Principles;  the  Theory  and  Practioe 
Well  explained  and  fully  e.xeiniilifiefl,  on  ei-rlity-three  Copj.er-Plntes.  In- 
cluding some  Observations  and  Calculatif»ns  on  the  Strength  of  Timber. 

BY    PETKR  NICHOLSON, 
Author  of  "The  Carpenter  and  JmniT's  As.si<tant."  "The  Student's  lostroetor 
to  the  Five  Orders."  <S£.c. 

Thirteenth  Edition.   One  rolume,  4to.,  well  bound- 


Date  Due 

 ^ — ^ 

MAT 

